V PUNDARIKAKSHUDU AND SONS REP BY ITS MANAGING PAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF SPACE, CIVIL EN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of a common order made in A.O. Ps. 86/93, 87/93 and 88/93 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gudur under Sec. 8(2) of the Arbitration Act 1940 seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to appoint a sole arbitrator to decide the claims of the petitioner enumerated in his letter dated 23-5-1992 addressed to the 1st respondent and if the 1st respondent fails to do so requesting the Court to appoint an arbitrator.

(2.) C.R.P. No. 947/99 is preferred against A.O.P. No. 87/93, C.R.P. No. 948/99 is preferred against A.O.P. 88/93 and C.R.P. No. 949/99 is preferred against A.O.P. No. 89/93. Since all these Civil Revision Petitions arise out of a common order and a common question is involved, these Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this Common Order.

(3.) The facts in brief are that the tender of the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 99,86,737-90 was accepted in relation to the construction of various facility buildings for IREX Expansion of PSLV. The work was to be completed within 18 months from the 15th day of the issue of the work order and it has to be completed on or before 20-2-1986. But in fact, the work was completed by 6-8-1988 and this delay was on account of the laches on the part of the Department. The 2nd respondent by his letter dated 29-6-1991 requested the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,43,172-53 on the ground that the excess amount was drawn and the petitioner had addressed a letter dated 23-5-1992 explaining various circumstances and claiming a sum of Rs. 1,06,051-10 towards final bill and the petitioner also addressed another letter dated 4-6-1992 making claims and also seeking for a claim of Rs. 1,00,000.00 being the Bank guarantee and the petitioner also addressed another letter dated 4-6-1992 seeking reference to an arbitrator. The petitioner also addressed a letter dated 8-6-1992 for appointment of an arbitrator which was turned down and the Chief Engineer had asked the petitioner to furnish the particulars of claims for the purpose of making a reference to an arbitrator and the petitioner accordingly had furnished particulars, but however the request of the petitioner was turned down and as far as the preparation of final bill is concerned it is averred that it is the Department which has to prepare the final bill and ultimately prayed for the relief of appointment of an arbitrator.