CHANDRESHWAR JHA Vs. NORTHERN COALFIELDS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is directed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties. The facts of the case are that the petitioner being a works contractor was registered with the respondents since 8-12-1984. On 27-3-1997 an agreement for replacement of damaged doors and windows including Chawkhats of colony at Garbi project was entered in between the applicant and respondent No. 1 for a contract valued of Rs. 23,40,552. 14p to be completed within six months from the date of commencement of the work. The aforesaid agreement consist Clause 9, about settlement of the dispute and for referring the dispute to the Chief Managing Director, NCL for decision.

(2.) THAT the petitioner completed the work in the month of August, 1997 and running bills were paid by respondent No. 1 but the final bill of the applicant was kept pending for want of sanction of revised estimate as the contract value of the work was considerably enhanced above the award value. On 20-11-1998, the Chief Manager of the respondent no. 1 passed an order instructing all projects to withhold the payments of the applicant due to dispute of the quality of the shutters. No opportunity of hearing was extended to the applicant and the contract registration of the applicant was kept in abeyance. On 8-12-1998 the applicant made a representation before the respondents to re-consider the order dated 20-11-1998 on the ground that the defects as pointed out by the respondents were rectified. Thereafter the applicant challenged order dated 20-11-1988 before the High Court in W. P. 3645/ 98. The aforesaid writ petition was finally dismissed by order dated 16-8-1999 by which the High Court found that it was not a case of black-listing of the petitioner. The opportunity was required only when the person is black-listed for all time. Petitioner represented to the concerned authorities and the registration of the petitioner was kept in abeyance for which no opportunity of hearing was necessary. The High Court held that it was not necessary on the part of the respondents to give petitioner an opportunity of hearing before passing a final order and with the aforesaid discussion, petition was dismissed as per order Annexure a-7. Against the order dated 16-8-1999 l. P. A. No. 438/99 was preferred, but by order annexure-A-8 dated 1-12-1999 it was dismissed as withdrawn.

(3.) THE applicant requested to the respondents under clause 9 of the Agreement for appointment of an Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties. The applicant raised its claim for Rs. 24. 2 lakhs and interest. The respondent No. 1 on 22-5-2000 refused to appoint an Arbitrator. Applicant filed an application under Section 11 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the additional District Judge, Sidhi. The application was contested by the respondents and by a reasoned order Annexure A-10 dated 4-3-2003, the application was rejected on the ground that clause 9 of the agreement was cancelled and there was no agreement between the parties for the appointment of an Arbitrator. It is not in dispute that the order Annexure A-10 was not challenged by the applicant and has attained finality.