GAYATRI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Vs. PATAN DISTRICT PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal arises against the judgement and order dated 9.3.2012 passed by the learned District Judge in Civil Misc. Application No.3/2012, whereby the application of the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') is dismissed.

(2.) THE short facts are that the contract was entered into between the appellant and the respondent for widening and strengthening Sidhpur � Umra � Kakoshi Road to Sidhpur, District Patan. As per the respondent, the work was not satisfactorily completed and, therefore, they addressed the letter dated 9.1.2012 to the appellant, stating that the payment has been made, but the work is not satisfactory and, therefore, the appellant was called upon to pay an amount of Rs.1,54,15,461/-, failing which it was conveyed to the appellant that the amount may be recovered from the other outstanding amounts of the other works done by the appellant. The appellant, being aggrieved by the said action, preferred application under Section 9 of the Act before the learned District Judge being Civil Misc. Application No.3/2012. The learned District Judge found against that seeking prayer against the action of the respondent initiated by the letter dated 9.1.2012 was not tenable at law as no steps for initiation of arbitration proceeding was taken and the action/order was beyond the purview of the Act, which was for recovering amount from the dues of the other works, which were going on with the respondents. The learned District Judge, after considering the matter, has passed the impugned judgement, mainly on the premise that such an order would be beyond the purview of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act and has ultimately rejected the application. Under these circumstances, the present appeal before this Court.

(3.) UNDER these circumstances, we are of the view that the ultimate findings recorded by the learned District Judge that the order prayed is beyond the scope of the Act does not call for any interference.