HMG ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED 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 reply of Mr. S. C. Jain as well as an Affidavit in Rejoinder of Mr. C. T. 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 form 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.) IT appears that with regard to the work carried out by the petitioner certain disputes and differences had arisen between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. Under the circumstances, the petitioner by its letter dated 6th January, 1995 had made a request to the 4th respondent to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of clause 70 of the conditions of contract. Thereafter, a reminder letter dated 25th September, 1995 was sent by the petitioner. Finally, since the 4th respondent had failed and neglected to appoint an Arbitrator an Arbitration Suit came to be filed by the petitioner being Arbitration Suit No. 4673 of 1995 under section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940. After a copy of the said Arbitration suit was served on the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, the 4th respondent purported to appoint the said Arbitrator as the Sole Arbitrator. In these circumstances the said suit became infructuous.