ANANT ELECTRICALS Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since these applications preferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) are arising out of same facts and circumstances, on the joint request of parties, the applications are analogously heard and decided by this common order.

(2.) The applicant entered into an agreement dated 24.1.2009 with the non-applicant for "Operation and Comprehensive maintenance of Electro-Mechanical Services for USOF Sites under Cluster No.37 District Shivpuri, No. of Sites-32". The agreement is placed on record as Annexure A-1. Shri Harish Dixit and Shri Pawan Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants submit that Clause 25 of General Conditions of Contract in Electrical Work provides for settlement of disputes and arbitration. The work of operation and maintenance was due for completion on 6.3.2010 and 26.5.2010 respectively. However, the applicant was required to work upto 31.8.2012. The timely payment on running bills of monthly maintenance, payments of top overhauling and major overhauling of the DG sets and certain other payments including payment of labour etc. were not made. The applicant's demand raised through letter dated 20.6.2011 went in vain. This followed by notice under Clause 25 of the Contract but this also could not fetch any result. The non-applicant's letter dated 23.7.2011 (Annexure A-4) was duly replied by the applicant on 1.8.2012. The Executive Engineer did not give any decision on the notice dated 18.7.2011 (Annexure A-3). Thereafter, the applicant submitted his claim to Superintending Engineer (Electrical) by letter dated 24.8.2011 (Annexure A-6). Lastly, a notice dated 21.3.2012 (Annexure A-7) was issued but none could materialize.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the necessary requirements as per agreement were fulfilled and there is inaction on the part of non-applicant and, therefore, Arbitrator be directed to be appointed. On the strength of (M/S Dharmendra Singh Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., 2014 3 MPLJ 21), it is contended that even if there is any procedural flaw as per Clause 25 of the agreement, such flaw will not defeat this application.