K.VISWANATH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 pursuant to an agreement dated 06.08.1996 entered into between the third respondent and the second respondent and MOU dated 14.03.1996 between the petitioner and the third respondent.

(2.) It is stated that Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) / the second respondent herein had floated tenders for construction of UGT, OHT and Pump House at Kannappar Thidal and also for Construction of Pump House at Triplicane. In the tender, the third respondent herein was the successful bidder and pursuant to the same, the third respondent had entered into a contract/agreement dated 06.08.1996 with the second respondent. Even prior to the award of the project, the third respondent had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.03.1996 (MoU) with the petitioner stating that if the third respondent becomes the successful bidder, the petitioner would execute the civil work on back to back basis favouring the third respondent and both the petitioner and the third respondent would share the rates, profits and claims in the ratio of 90:10 respectively. Subsequently, on 16.04.1997, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the third respondent. The petitioner sent a letter dated 20.12.1999 to the respondents 2 and 3 stating that, if any, deviations are made in the contract by the parties, after signing the Agreement, it will tantamount to breach of contract and also requested to release the recoveries made by the second respondent. Since the dispute arose relating to release of payments, by letter dated 16.06.2000, the petitioner requested the third respondent to settle the recoveries and certain claims and the third respondent, who in turn, requested the second respondent to settle the outstanding amount pursuant to the contract, vide letter dated 04.01.2001.

(3.) While the disputes remain the same, the third respondent, vide letter dated 18.04.2001 to the second respondent, prayed for forming a Committee consisting of Senior Level Officials of the respondents 2 and 3 to settle the issue amicably. Similarly, another letter dated 30.12.2002 along with claims booklet was sent by the third respondent to the second respondent stating that if the High Level Committee is not formed, then as an alternative, an Arbitrator from the retired Chief Engineers shall be appointed to resolve the pending issues.