SUBHASH RONGHTA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. 1666/1989 is an application under Order 9 Rule 7 read with Sec. 151 CPC, moved by the defendants for recalling the order by which the defendants were proceeded ex parte. I have perused the application. The respondents were proceeded ex parte by order dated 30-11-1988. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent. No sufficient cause has been shown for setting aside the ex parte proceedings. The application is dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act seeking directions to the respondents to file the arbitration agreement in this court and for reference of dispute for arbitration. The petitioner entered into an agreement with the Delhi Development Authority (Slum) for the work of Environmental Improvement in J.J Cluster near Railway Line Timber Market, Kirti Nagar, vide contract No. 56/WB/4321/ Pt/(2)/A(T)/87-88 dated 14-9-1987. It is stated that the petitioner provided labour huts, constructed godown, office, installed hand pump and also excavated trenches and so much so lot of material was also stacked at site inter alia "bricks-11,500, stone aggregate 900 Cft., Jamuna Sand 100 Cft , besides 1 Mt. of steel and engaged watch and ward and deployed regular establishment for the execution of the aforesaid work." But the respondents thereafter did not permit the petitioner to complete the work. It is further claimed that the petitioner suffered heavy losses at the hands of the respondents. Thus compensation for breach of contract has been claimed. The respondents refused to liquidate the dues of the petitioner, hence the disputes and differences have arisen between the parties. Clause 25 of the contract contemplates settlement of disputes by means of arbitration. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause on 23.3.1988, but the respondents paid no heed to it. The following disputes are alleged to have arisen between the parties : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_93_LAWS(DLH)3_19891.html</FRM>

(3.) Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. Despite service none appeared on behalf of the respondents and the respondents were proceeded ex parse. Thereafter I.A. 1666/1989 was filed on behalf of the respondents for setting aside the ex parse proceedings. No reasonable cause is shown in the application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings. Hence the application has been dismissed.