HMG ENGINEERING PVT LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Respondents. Perused the Petition, its exhibits, the impugned Award, an affidavit in Rejoinder of Mr. C.AT. Khubchandani.

(2.) THIS petition challenges an Award dated 15th February, 1997. The brief facts pertaining to this case are as under : It appears that on 26th July, 1986, the Petitioner had received a tender from the 2nd Respondent for construction of residential accommodation for staff of DGI at Ghatkopar. Thereafter on 11th November, 1986 the petitioner had submitted its tender which was duly accepted by the 2nd Respondent on 9th July, 1988. Based on the aforesaid acceptance of the tender, an agreement (contract) was entered into between the petitioner and the Respondents on 20th September, 1988. In the said contract the Petitioner is defined as Contractor and the 1st Respondent through the 2nd Respondent as the Principal. It appears that on 16th August, 1988 the 3rd Respondent had issued works order to commence work and complete the same by 15th August, 1990. It is the case of the petitioner that because of the diverse breaches on the part of the 3rd Respondent the work could not be completed by 15th August, 1990. Ultimately the 3rd Respondent was pleased to extend the time upto 31st August, 1992.

(3.) THEREAFTER it appears that the 4th Respondent by its letter dated 24th January, 1996 purported to refer disputes set out in Appendix A to the said letter, and alleged that the petitioner's claims listed in Appendix B to the said letter were allegedly outside the ambit of the said Arbitration clause. Thereafter it appears that the learned by his letters dated 17th February, 1996 and 6th April, 1996 had called upon the parties to file their pleadings before him. It appears that the 4th Respondent had restricted the reference only with regard to the disputes set out in Appendix A and not with regard to Appendix B. Under the circumstances, the Petitioner were left with no other alternative but to approach this Court by way of an Arbitration Sue No. 2126 of 1996. Ultimately, on 9th September, 1996 this court had directed the said Arbitrator to decide whether the disputes referred to in Appendix B can be arbitrated upon or not and the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were also directed to refer all the disputes to the said Arbitrator including the disputes referred to in Appendix B can be arbitrated upon or not and the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were also directed to refer all the disputes to the said Arbitrator including the disputes referred to in appendix B. It appears that against the said order dated 9th September, 1996 the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 appear to have preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court and the Said appeal appears to have been dismissed on the ground of non-removal of office objections. In view thereof the order dated 9th September, 1996 subsists and the same is binding on all the parties.