STATE OF ORISSA Vs. BHAGYADHAR DASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 04-12-2004, passed by the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar, in Arb. Misc. Case No. 139 of 2001, dismissing the application of the State appellant filed under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for setting aside the award passed by the learned Arbitrator.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the State-appellant had floated a tender for the work Construction of Compound Wall and Internal Roads for the Staff Quarters of Director of Technical Education and Training, Orissa at Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar . The estimated cost of the work was Rs. 13,20,000.00 and the respondent-Contractor submitted his tender for said work at the tender value of Rs. 17,50,977.00, which was accepted. Thereafter the respondent-Contractor signed the F2 agreement on 21-12-1996 and was issued with the work order. As per the agreement, the respondent-Contractor was required to complete the work within six months from the date of signing of the agreement and as requested by the Chief Engineer, the respondent-Contractor was to complete the work by 31-3-1997. The respondent-Contractor collected materials and completed excavation of foundation trench for laying concrete in foundation for construction of compound wall and had cleared the bushes from the work site and had levelled the ground for construction of internal roads. When the contract work was in progress, on 09-1-1997 another Special Class Contractor came to the site and disturbed the progress of the work. Though the respondent-Contractor intimated the same to the appellant and others on 13-1-1997, they remained silent. On 26-1-1997, one Rohit Kumar Das, on the strength of work order from Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, began laying concreate on the foundation trench which was excavated by the respondent-Contractor. On 27-1-1997, the respondent-Contractor requested the appellant to restrain Rohit Kumar Das from laying foundation but to no effect. Thereafter the respondent-Contractor issued a letter to the Superintending Engineer, Central Circle (R&B), Bhubaneswar, requesting him to enter into reference as per Clause 11 of the F2 agreement, to adjudicate the dispute. As no action was taken by the concerned Superintending Engineer, the respondent-Contractor approached this Court under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and this Court was pleased to appoint Shri Justice S.C. Mohapatra (Retd.) as the sole Arbitrator in MJC No. 361 of 1997.

(3.) The respondent-Contractor filed his claim statement before the learned Arbitrator and the appellant on receipt of notice, appeared before the learned Arbitrator and filed his statement of defence/objection, disputing all the claims raised by the respondent-Contractor. The appellant also pleaded before the learned Arbitrator that there was no arbitration clause in the agreement and therefore, learned Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim.