M/S. HIMALAYA CONSTRUCTION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts are not in dispute in the present request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

(2.) The petitioner was awarded a contract by the Central Public Works Department. The work was to be completed by 2007 but the tenure thereof was subsequently extended. At the time of the final extension of the period for completion of the work being granted, the petitioning contractor made a declaration that the contractor had not suffered any loss on account of delay in the implementation of the project. The work was admittedly completed sometime in the year 2009.

(3.) By a letter dated May 12, 2011, the petitioner made a claim before the superintending engineer in apparent compliance with clause 25(i) of the general conditions governing Central Public Works Department contracts. The superintending engineer received the claim on the same day itself but did not react thereto and it was only on June 17, 2011 that the superintending engineer required the petitioner to furnish documents in support of the claim. The essence of the claim before the superintending engineer was that the time taken for completion of the work was delayed because of default on the part of the employer for which the contractor had allegedly suffered loss and damage.