M. SOMASSOUNDIRAME Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a Civil Engineering Contractor, submitted a bid for the tender floated by the respondent in respect of the work for construction of tail end bed dam across Vanjiar River at Melaveli in Karaikal. The bid of the petitioner was accepted resulting in a work order dated 31.05.2007 for the work to be completed within a period of ten months of a value of Rs. 1,15,80,060/ -. The agreement inter se the parties contains clause 25 as the arbitration clause. This clause inter alia provides:

(2.) IT is not in issue that disputes have arisen inter se the parties from the agreement and consequently, the petitioner called upon the designated authority of the respondent to nominate an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause, vide letter dated 05.05.2009 followed by reminders. The fact remains that no arbitrator was appointed compelling the petitioner to file the present petition under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

(3.) THE aforesaid aspect, in a similar clause, has been discussed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in an unreported judgment in FAO (OS) No. 231 of 2010 (between M/s. Nav Nirman Construction Company vs. Executive Engineer CD -IX, Irrigation and Flood Control Department, GNCT of Delhi) decided on 16.09.2011, authored by one of us (Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., as he then was). In the said judgment, a reference is made to the opinion expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nandyal Coop. Spinning Mills Ltd. vs. K.V. Mohan Rao : (1993) 2 SCC 654, as under: