GURINDER SINGH & CO. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this order, I shall dispose of two revision petitions bearing CR Nos. 3271 & 3272 of 2000 as both are inter -connected. However, the facts are extracted from CR No. 3271 of 2000.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that agreement No. CE NWC/7/80 -81 for provision of certain technical building at Ambala was entered into between the petitioner and respondent -UOI on 07.10.1980. The dispute arose between the parties, but despite request of the petitioner, the matter was not referred to the Arbitrator, therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (here -in -after referred to as the "Act") before the Sub Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh, in which the objection was raised that the petitioner had already submitted final bill in terms of condition no. 65 of the agreement and had given certificate of "no further claims" after receiving the payment, therefore, there was no dispute which could be referred to the Arbitrator. However, the contention of respondent no. 1 was rejected and Arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, vide order dated 01.04.1985. According to the petitioner, this order was not challenged by respondent no. 1 and accordingly, the competent authority, i.e. the Engineer -in -Chief appointed, Shri P. Ananthram, Chief Engineer, out of the panel of Arbitrators maintained by M.E.S., as the Arbitrator. Respondent no. 1 raised objection before the Arbitrator as well that the dispute is not covered by arbitration as the contractor had already given the final bill with "no further claims" and relied upon condition no. 65 of the General Conditions of Contract, but the Arbitrator did not accept the plea of the UOI and directed it to submit its pleadings in defence on merits of the claim. Ultimately, the Arbitrator announced his award on 17.05.1986. Thereafter, the petitioner filed application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Act for making award as rule of the Court in which respondent no. 1 filed objection under Section 30 of the Act for setting aside the award, inter alia, on the ground that as per condition no. 65, no further claims should be made by the contractor after submission of the final bill as these should have been deemed to be waived of and extinguished. It is alleged that the petitioner completed his work on 01.09.1983 and final bill was signed by him with certificate "no further claim" after receiving the payment on 27.03.1984 without any reservation. The Civil Court at Chandigarh, vide its order dated 29.10.1990, dismissed the objection and ordered that the award of the Arbitrator be made rule of the Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that even if the award of the Arbitrator does not carry reasons, it still cannot be challenged. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Harbans Singh Tuli and sons, : 1981 ILR (Punjab & Haryana) 561.