HYDRO TECH Vs. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order I propose to dispose three connected Arbitration Requests/Applications, as the same are based upon identical facts.

(2.) Notices in these applications were issued on 15th November, 2006. As per office report, service is complete, but nobody has chosen to appear on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) The prayer made in these applications filed under Section 11(6) and (8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, hereinafter referred to "Act of 1996", is to appoint an Arbitrator. The bare minimum facts that need necessary mention are extracted from Arbitration Request No.53 of 2006 (Hydro-Tech v. The Kerala Water Authority). The case of the petitioner is that the work of "R.W.S.S. to Nemom (LIC Aided)" was awarded to the applicant by a selection notice on 27.2.1990 and a formal contract agreement dated 21.3.1990 was entered into between the applicant and the 1st Opposite Party acting through the 2nd Opposite Party. 26.2.1991 was the date stipulated for completion of the work, but the work was completed in November, 1991. On 29.6.1995, the Chief Engineer of the Opposite Parties directed the 2nd Opposite Party and the Executive Engineer to release 75% of the proposed rates for all extra items as secured advance and 85% for excess quantities of agreed items in anticipation of sanction to the revised estimate, but of no avail. On 9.1.2006, the applicant notified the 2nd Opposite Party to intimate the amount due and payable as per the revised estimate and the time frame within which sanction would be accorded and payment made against final bill. The 2nd Opposite Party intimated the applicant that the revised estimate was Rs.105.01 lakhs and that the payment could be made only after sanction was obtained on 19.5.2006. The applicant issued claim notice on 30.6.2006 calling upon the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs.2,26,28,299/- within fifteen days. On 15.9.2006, the applicant notified the 2nd Opposite Party that disputes and differences having arisen between the applicant and the Opposite Parties, the 2nd Opposite Party should enter upon, adjudicate and decide the disputes between the parties, but despite the lapse of more than thirty days after the receipt of notice dated 15.9.2006, the 2nd Opposite Party failed to perform the functions entrusted to him under the contract to act as Arbitrator. Hence the present application for appointment of Arbitrator.