RESHMI CONSTRUCTIONS BUILDERS Vs. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.(Arbitration) 182 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Mavelikkara is the petitioner in this writ petition. This writ petition is filed challenging the orders passed by the court below dismissing I.A.Nos. 1028 and 1029 of 2004 filed by the plaintiff in the above suit. The prayer in I.A.No.1028 of 2004 was to appoint a sole arbitrator from among the panel of names submitted by the plaintiff. I.A.No.1029 of 2004 was filed for an order of injunction restraining Sri S.S.Mediratta from acting as the sole arbitrator and to stay all further proceedings before the arbitrator till the disposal of the O.P.

(2.) The short facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:- Petitioner is a registered partnership firm engaged in carrying out civil engineering contract works, having its office at Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner was awarded the work of earth filling in the temporary Township Part II Nangiarkulangara in the Kayamkulam Project of the first respondent-National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (N.T.P.C for short) during the year 1990. After completion of the work, petitioner submitted the final bill which was rejected by the first respondent. The first respondent itself prepared a final bill and forwarded the same along with a printed format bearing 'No Demand Certificate'. The petitioner signed the certificate and received the amount. On the very same day, petitioner sent a letter to the first respondent stating that they had signed the final bill and no demand certificate under coercion. It was also stated that they received the amount under protest.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the first respondent committed serious breach of contract and the petitioner was unable to finish the work in time and he sustained huge loss. It was also alleged that the first respondent promised to pay additional amounts so as to cover the loss suffered by the petitioner. But after completion of the work, N.T.P.C backed out from the promise. It was alleged that during the course of work itself, the relationship between the petitioner and the Engineer in charge of the project and other officers of the first respondent became strained. N.T.P.C rejected the final bill submitted by the petitioner and prepared its own bill because of the strained relationship. Immediately after receipt of the amount, petitioner sent a notice claiming additional amounts. It also issued a notice through its Advocate demanding the N.T.P.C to refer the dispute to an Arbitrator. Though initially the N.T.P.C was amenable to such a course, subsequently it backed out and refused to refer the matter to an Arbitrator.