UMA ENGINEERING CO Vs. SUPRINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a partnership firm. It submitted a tender for the work of Lining of Thunga Bhadra Project low Level Canal in two bits. Contract was awarded, and certain disputes have arisen thereafter. The dispute is, in relation to the rates quoted by the petitioner. In its tender, the petitioner quoted Rs. 84/- for 10 cubic metres of material. It is stated that the quantity 10 cubic metres was quoted, instead of one cubic metre. It is pleaded that in the ordinary parlance, the quantities in the works of this nature are, in the units of 10 cubic metres, and on that assumption, the rate was quoted. Some correspondence has ensued between the petitioner, and the various authorities of the department.

(2.) THE petitioner wanted its dispute to be referred to arbitration. However, two government Orders, viz. , G. O. Ms. No. 430, dated 24. 10. 1983, as amended by G. O. Ms. No. 160, Irrigation and CAD (Projects Wind)Department, dated 1. 6. 1987; come in the way of the petitioner. Therefore, the said gos are challenged.

(3.) SMT. Tirumala Rani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the agreement between the parties contained the specific clause, to the effect that the dispute shall be resolved by having recourse to the arbitration, under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the 1940 Act'), with any statutory modifications thereof. She contends that the scope of 1940 Act was very limited and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short 'the 1996 Act'), which repealed the 1940 Act, is comprehensive in nature, and irrespective of the monetary value of dispute, the arbitration, under the 1996 Act has to be resorted to.