N K TRADING COMPANY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 27. 06. 2002 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, in FAO No. 1 (T) of 2002 overturning the Judgment and Order dated 25. 02. 2000 passed by the learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, in (Arb) Misc. Case No. 8 (T)/ 1996 referring the disputes raised by the respondent to a sole arbitrator appointed by a Court.

(2.) I have heard Mr. S. R. Sen, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. P. D. B. Baruah, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. C. Shyam, the learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for the Union of India and others.

(3.) FOR better appreciation of the controversy involved in the revision, it will be necessary to notice briefly the facts of the case as set out in the petition. The petitioner, a partnership firm carrying on the occupation of engineering and contract works in different parts of the region, entered into a contract agreement with the respondent for provision of OTM Accommodation for FSD at Panitala in Shillong vide CA No. CESZ/pani/07/of/88-89 in the year 1989. In the contract agreement, there is an arbitration clause stipulating that all disputes arising out of the execution of the contract are to be referred to the sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the Engineer-in-Chief, Kashmir House, New Delhi. It is alleged by the petitioner that in the course of executing the assignment, he faced a number of obstacles such as delay in handing over the work site, payment of running bills, etc. , but that did not deter him from carrying out the work assigned to him and the work was duly completed by him whereupon he submitted his final bill along with the "no Objection Certificate" under protest. According to the petitioner, instead of releasing the payment, the respondent requested the petitioner to withdraw the protest note from the No Claim Certificate, which he finally obliged. The petitioner further alleges that this did not also satisfy the respondent, who further demanded that the note "under Protest" be also be withdrawn by him from the Final Bill itself. Apparently, this disagreement compelled the petitioner to invoke the said arbitration clause by requesting the respondent to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute raised by him together with the list of claims vide his letter dated 28. 04. 1995. When the respondent failed to respond to this request even after the lapse of eight months of the receipt of the letter, the petitioner approached the learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner under Sections 8 and 10 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ("the Act" for short) for appointment of an arbitrator. The learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner registered the case as (Arb) Misc Case No. 8 (T) of 1996 and, after hearing the parties, passed the Judgment and Order appointing the sole Arbitrator.