TTD COMMITTEE Vs. M RAMA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 39 of the Arbitration Act, arises outoftheorderpassed by the Additional subordinate Judge, Ongole, in O.P.No: 60 of 1990. This O.P. was filed by the respondent herein who was entrusted with the contract work for the construction of Kalyanamandapam at Ongole for the appellants viz., Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam. The work was commenced under an Agreement, dated 6.11.1985 (Ex B-1). It appears that some disputes arose as regards the execution of the work and the payments due to the respondent. These disputes related to imposition of certain fines and recoveries made from the contractor and also as regards the defective execution of work by the contractor.

(2.) On23.6.1989,i.e., some time after the construction was completed, the respondent-contractor submitted a letter requesting the Executive engineer (third appellant herein), to release the final bill amount after reducing the rates for the three deficient items of work carried out by him. This is marked as Ex. B-4 in the said O.P. A few days thereafter i.e., on 29.6.1989, the appellants finalised the amounts due to the respondent and paid the money after the respondent endorsed on 'M-Book' that he had no objection for the measurements, rates and the amounts mentioned in the final bill and he was agreeable for the same. This is marked as Ex. B-3 in the O.P.

(3.) Some time after receiving the payment, the respondent notified his objections for the amounts paid to him under the final bill. It is not clear from the record whether the respondent sought for appointment of anarbitrator to resolve thedisputes. But, on25.6.1990, the respondent filed the O.P. under sec. 20 of the Arbitration Act with a prayer to direct the appellants here in to file the original agreement No: 45 CE/1985-86 and to appoint a retired chief Engineer as a sole arbitrator and to refer the disputes and differences for his adjudication. In the petition the respondent made a reference to "outstanding claims" and he mentioned 14 claims. Some of them relate to the alleged execution of certain supplemental items not provided for by the agreement for which extra payment was claimed. The respondents in the O.P. (the appellants herein) objected to the reference mainly on the ground that there is no arbitrable dispute in view of the categorical no-claim endorsement made by the contractor while receiving the final bill amount on 29.6.1989. The learned Addl. Subordinate Judge observed that there is a dispute regarding the circumstances under which the respondent-contractor executed exhibits B-3 and B-4and that dispute including all the claims has to be resolved by an arbitrator.