A ANAND RAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator for resolving the disputes between the parties to the application.

(2.) The admitted facts of the case, in short, are that on 20-12-1996, the petitioner was entrusted with the work of urgently repairing the leaky roofs, ceilings, flooring in old CK. and file colony. The value of the contract was Rs.3,08,762.00. The stipulated date of completion of the contract was 12-4-1997. On 24-2-1997, the Senior DEN/Central/HYB had written to Senior DAO/HYB that during the actual execution of the work, it has been necessitated to operate certain increased quantities of existing SSR items and additional SSR Items and also non/less operation of certain items as per the requirement at site, showing a saving of Rs, 1,07,306/- due to the reduction of work of fixing A.C. plain sheets in the ceiling as also due to the reduction of flooring repairing works. As against the savings, he proposed repairing of the damaged colony roads in CKL old colony at Rs.1,73,022.00and intimated that the proposed changes and variations in the original agreement of Rs.3.09 lakhs would be enhanced to Rs.3.74 lakhs resulting in 24.35 per cent increase over the original agreement value. He requested through this letter to accord financial concurrence to the final variation statement annexed with the letter. The respondents have paid to the petitioner an amount of Rs.63,937.00 through cheque No.462019, dated 17-3-1997 in respect of the work (reduced work) under the original agreement, dated 20-12-1996.

(3.) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the aforementioned additional work was entrusted to him, but it could not be completed within the stipulated time due to the default of the respondents. However, the entire work was completed on 30-4-1997. The petitioner had prepared only one C.C. bill for the additional work. Inspite of demands, the respondents did not pay the bill for the additional works resulting in financial loss to the petitioner and, therefore, through notice dated 24-7-1998, the petitioner demanded payment of Rs.5,63,000.00 and for referring the dispute to the arbitrator under Clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract (for short, 'GCC').