P C THOMAS AND CO Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order I propose to dispose of 13 connected matters as not only the questions but the parties involved in all these matters are common. The bare minimum facts that need a necessary mention have been extracted from A.R.No.40 of 2006.

(2.) The applications have been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon all claims of the petitioner that are preferred against the respondents in Annexure C notice of arbitration request dated 3.6.2006; in terms of Annexure A arbitration agreement on the subject construction contract. It is the case of the petitioner that disputes arose between the applicant and the respondents in the matter of execution of contract work No.Works-1/2/2000-01-A.B.1/2281 dated 6.12.2000, Agreement No.32.KLP/2000-01 dated 6.12.2000. Clause 25 of the general conditions of the contract provides for resolving of disputes through the process of arbitration. Accordingly the applicant requested for appointment of an arbitrator. The respondents did not appoint arbitrator and therefore these applications under Section 11 of the Act of 1996.

(3.) Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court the respondents have entered appearance and filed counter affidavit. The Court may not look into the details of the counter affidavit as the only ground on which the request for arbitration is sought to be contested is that as per the clause in the agreement reference to the arbitration could be sought within 30 days from the date of arising of the dispute, but in the present case the request to arbitration has been made after more than two years. This plea raised on behalf of the respondents has to be repelled as the petitioner first in point of time had filed a writ petition bearing No.W.P.(C) 35216 of 2004 which was disposed of by this Court by judgment dated 19th October, 2005. The writ was allowed with regard to undisputed bills and the money with regard to the undisputed bills had to be paid within three months. The short order passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of the writ petition on 19th October, 2005 is reproduced below: "The petitioner Company is a Government contractor, which did certain works for the respondents. Feeling aggrieved by the delay from the part of the respondents to honour the bills raised by it, this Writ Petition is filed. 2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, disputing the claim of the petitioner. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, it is submitted as follows: "The final bill of certain works of the contractor could not be paid yet for want of revised sanction and deposit from the client department and sanction of extension of time. The claims will be settled immediately on receipt of deposit from the client department and EOT sanction to all works." In view of the above submission, the respondents are directed to settle the claims of the petitioner Company regarding the undisputed bills within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The claim of the petitioner for payment of other bills, is kept open for which, he may work out his remedies before the appropriate forum."