K RAGHURAM RAJU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant seeks appointment of a sole arbitrator for resolution of the dispute between the parties inter se.

(2.) It is averred inter alia in the application that the applicant entered into an agreement No. 28/Sr/DEN/N/MG dated 10-10-1983 with the respondents agreeing inter alia to carry out the work of tree plantation at Akot Station, the value whereof is Rs.1,20,3000/-. The period within which the work should be carried out is one month and the maintenance period is for nine months. The applicant had carried out the work and he was paid two part bills. However, the final bill amount of Rs. 62,127/- has not been paid till date. The measurements have already been recorded in the measurement book. The applicant signed in the measurement book as well as the final bill. However, there has been no response from the authorities. The applicant was forced to maintain the garden for a period of four months even after the completion of the original period of nine months maintenance as per the agreement Thus, he incurred overhead establishment regarding the five months period. In this connection, the applicant made several representations requesting the authorities for demand. He got a notice dt. 17-05-2002 issued demanding appointment of an Arbitrator for proper resolution of the dispute invoking Clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract ('G.C.C.' for brevity). The respondents however failed to do so.

(3.) The third respondent filed a counter resisting the claim. It is averred inter alia in the counter that the applicant executed the work at a lower pace and sought extension of time. Accordingly, time was extended from 29-10-1983 to 10-08-1984 for the completion of the work and the maintenance period upto 09-05-1985. Since the agreements is about 19 years old, some of the measurement books and bill copies are not traceable from records. However, as per the records available, it could be seen that the applicant himself did not turn up for witnessing the final measurements and signing the final bill. The final measurements were recorded in the measurement book on 01-08-1985 but the payment could not be made as the applicant was not available and he did not comply with the procedure. thus, the Department is not responsible for the delay on the part of the applicant. Although the applicant made a representation dated 17-02-1997 requesting for finalisation since the matter was pending finalisation for more than one decade, it has been proposed to close the agreement by submitting the final bill on the basis of the measurements recorded. Furthermore, on account of the time gap, it is also not possible to verify the genuineness of the work done. Therefore, the claim of the applicant is disputed. In view of the conduct of the applicant, there is no arbitral dispute between the applicant and the respondents inasmuch as the claim is time barred. Even according to Clause 64 of G.C.C. the period of 90 days has been elapsed and, therefore, the Department deemed that the applicant waived his claim. Since the claim pertains to the year 1983, the present Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act' for brevity) has no application and, therefore, this Arbitration Application is liable to be dismissed.