BUDHIRAJA ELECTRICALS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, applicant seeks reference of existing dispute to the arbitrator already in seisin with part of dispute. It is borne out from record that for construction of residential and non-residential buildings for RTC ITBP, Karera, MP (SH: Providing Fans and Fittings in Residential and Non-residential buildings and pumping sets) an agreement was entered into between the applicant and respondent vide Agreement No.43/EE(E)/GCED/2014-15 dated 22.12.2014. The work order was issued on 12.01.2015 and was completed on 05.04.2016. Certain disputes arose between them as regard to payments. The applicant invoked Clause 25 of the Agreement which lays down the mechanism for resolution of inter se dispute; on 07.12.2016. As no decision was taken on the application, the applicant filed an appeal; whereon, Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) was constituted on 03.02.2017. The applicant made following claims:

(2.) The respondent, however, has opposed the claim. It is urged that the DRC after taking into consideration of compliance done by respondent decided all the claims conveyed vide their order no.WZII/C&A/15(154)/2018/9036-40-H dated 10.10.18 (Exhibit R-6) wherein claim No.1 for 4th and final bill is accepted before DRC is Rs.12,96,310/- duly conveyed to respondent by claimant vide his letter dated 20.10.2018. According to the orders the payments were made to the claimant long back as also intimated to them vide respondent letter no.54(184)/GCED/18/2438 dated 16.11.2018 (Exhibit R-7) indicating that gross work done of 4th and final bill paid is Rs.14,44,355/- after adjustment of secured advance of Rs.3,24,579/- net gross of 4th and final bill paid Rs.11,19,776/- claim of claimant of balance payment of Rs.1,76,534/- is baseless and bogus. Moreover, interest Rs.1,52,716/- has been paid against claim No.6 and no interest is due for claim No.2 in view of respondent letter No.54(184)/GCD/18/2555 dated 10.12.2018 (Annexure-4) of further as claim No.7 no interest is payable EMD & Security Deposit was in FDR shape wherein interest was allowed by bank itself.

(3.) It is urged that after getting the claims settled in DRC the claimant has again approached the competent authority for reviewing their claims for appointment of an Arbitrator. The competent authority after due consideration appointed Shri A.P. Joshi as a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the Claim No.4, 5, 8 and 9 vide letter no.55(L-83)/ARB/CE(CZ)/18-19/3665 dated 14/11/2018 amounting to Rs.27,31,450/- + simple interest (Exhibit R-8) for which the case is under process with the Arbitrator. It is urged, Claim No.1, 2, 3, 6, 7 were not forwarded to Arbitrator because the applicant vide his letter dated 20.10.2018 has accepted the fact that these claims/disputes are already decided by DRC in his favour. Thus, no dispute remains with respect to these claims. It is contended that the applicant has unnecessarily dragged the respondent to the legal proceedings on unjustified, baseless grounds though the respondent has already settled justified claims of the applicant. It is contended that the applicant is not justified in filing the application and the doctrine of Res Judicata is applicable in this matter as in accordance with the provisions of agreement all the disputes referred to the DRC were duly settled and even payment made to the claimant long back.