LAWS(APH)-2008-2-74

STUP CONSULTANTS PVT LTD Vs. SOHAM ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTIONS

Decided On February 05, 2008
STUP CONSULTANTS PVT.LTD. Appellant
V/S
SOHAM ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTIONS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is filed under Section 11 (5)and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 (the Act brevity), seeking appointment of arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the applicant and the respondent.

(2.) THE applicant is Consultancy Company. It offers consultancy for civil and structural engineering, architectural engineering and project management. The respondent, which is a construction firm, is in the business of civil/building contract. They desired to have designed consultancy services of the applicant. Discussions were held. Pursuant thereto, the applicant made an offer to provide consultancy services for construction of flyovers at (a) Telugu Talli Statue Junction; (b) Ambedkar Statue Junction and (c) Basheerbagh Junction. The offer also contained details of number of post tender services and consultancy charges therefor. The offer was also subject to "other terms and conditions" appended to the letter of offer as Annexure-l. Condition No. 10 thereof provided that in case of dispute, it shall be referred to a sole arbitrator accepted by both the parties, failing which, to two arbitrators one each appointed by either party and resolved as per Arbitration Act, 1940 (1940 Act, for brevity ). The applicant alleges that the respondent accepted the offer by their letter dated 17-10-1996 and thus there resulted the concluded contract between the parties.

(3.) AFTER performing their part, the applicant requested for payment for the work done. The applicant also alleges that the billing was done as per the contract and the services rendered at agreed stages and total amount works out to Rs. 68,28,213/ -. The respondent paid a sum of Rs. 31,81,909/- from time to time including tax deducted at source and the balance amount of Rs. 36,46,304/- was not paid in spite of reminders. Therefore, the applicant invoked arbitration clause and suggested the names of two arbitrators. As there was no response, the applicant again sent a letter dated 30-11 -2006 suggesting a sole arbitrator: Thereafter, the present application is filed.