MANOHARLAL SAMBHANI Vs. KISHAN SING BHATOL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition against the order Annexure P/1 dated 22/07/2011 by which the respondent no. 1 appointed arbitrator. The petitioner was awarded a contract of construction of administrative building and complex at Jail Road, Bhopal vide memo dated 28/12/1998. The work order was issued to the petitioner on 16/02/1999. The extension was also granted to the petitioner and the period of completion of work was extended upto 18/08/2003. The petitioner had completed the work, there was some dispute raised by the petitioner for payment of correct amount. An expert committee was appointed by the then Chairman of the Bank thereafter, the payment was released in favour of the petitioner vide letter dated 27/09/2001, thereafter the dispute was finally settled. The final amount of bill and security deposit were paid to the petitioner on 26/08/2003. As per the petitioner contract came to an end on 26/03/2005, no dispute was raised by the respondents in this regard upto 06/09/2010.

(2.) The petitioner raised certain claims before the Tribunal constituted by respondent no. 1 consisting of Mr. P.L. Jain, Mr. S.K. Shrivastava & Mr. L.K. Shrivastava. They pronounced the award on 25/09/2006, it was challenged by the respondents under Section 34 of Act of 1996 before the District Judge, Bhopal.

(3.) On 06/09/2010, the respondent no. 2 issued a demand letter through Advocate about recovery of excess payment of Rs. 33,94, 511/- . It was mentioned in the letter that some excess payment was made in favour of the petitioner against item No. 11 and 12 of the contract. The petitioner replied the letter and contended that there was no excess payment and the demand is time barred and thereafter the respondent no. 1 appointed arbitrator vide impugned order dated 27/07/2011. The respondent in the reply pleaded that the appointment of arbitrator is in accordance with clause 4 of the agreement dated 28/12/1998. The respondents also raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition that appointment of arbitrator cannot be challenged in a writ petition and further pleaded that the appointment of arbitrator can be challenged by way of objection before the arbitrator. The respondents did not file specific reply in regard to limitation.