COAL INDIA LIMITED Vs. PAUL BUILDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under section 33 of the Arbitration Act challenging the scope and effect of the Arbitration agreement dated 26th September, 1987 amongst various other reliefs.

(2.) According to the petitioner, on arbitrable dispute exists which can be adjudicated by the learned Arbitrator appointed herein. In support of such submission Mr. P.C. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the page 26A of the petition being photocopy of a document and stated that there is no claim outstanding as against the work and the respondent received tha amount in full and fianl settlement of the claim. Acceptance by the respondent is without demur. Therefore the principle of estoppel applies against the respondents from making any further claim whatsoever in connection thereto and/or arising out of the contract including damages after such acceptance without demur. In support of his contention he has referred a judgment reported in 1994 Supp (3) SCC 126 (P.K. Ramaiah and Company v. Chairman and Managing Director National Thermal Power Corporation).

(3.) Mr. Pradip Kumar Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent joined issues therein by saying that the judgment of the Supreme Court as above is restricted only on the factual circumstances of that particular case wherein reference to an arbitration is yet to be started. In the instant case that chapter is over when the petitioner participated in the proceeding before the court for such reference and when upon hearing the parties, court was pleased to appoint an Arbitrator and referred the dispute before him. Moreover in the instant case at least 25 effective sittings were held before the Arbitrator upon being framing of issues where the petitioner is very much party. Witness on behalf of the respondent was examined. In answering various questions in cross-examination and in specific of the Arbitrator being question No. 453 the witness deposed "my claims were not included in the final bill - whatever is appearing in this bill I have accepted as full and final settlement. I have stated earlier also that I have no outstanding claim against the final bill-but I have other claims which are not related with the final bill." The interpretation of Mr. Dutta is that the claim in respect of the final bill may be settled but that does not necessarily mean his client has given up all other claims arising within the scope and ambit of the widely covered Arbitration clause.