UNION OF INDIA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the Union of India against the order of the Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Jalandhar, appointing an independent Arbitrator for determining the disputes between the appellant and the Contractor.

(2.) Necessary facts for deciding the question in controversy are that an application was filed by the respondent in this appeal under Sec. 20 of the Arbitration Act (for short 'the Act') for appointment of Arbitrator by impleading the Union of India through its Secretary Railways, Railway Bhawan, New Delhi, Chief Engineer, Rail Coach Factory, Hussainpur (Kapurthala) and the General Manager, Railways, Near Railway Station, Jalandhar City as respondents. The respondent in this appeal would be referred to as the Contractor whereas the Union of India and its Officers who are appellants in this appeal would be referred to as the respondents. The Contractor filed the application with the averments that he was allotted the work of construction of 100 Beds Hospital in Rail Coach Factory, Hussainpur District Kapurthala by the Union of India-respondent No. 1 through its Chief Engineer, respondent NO. 2, vide letter dated 4. 8. 1987.

(3.) It has further been averred that the Contractor cleared the position in his letter dated 305. 89 but no attention was paid by the respondent The contractor highlighted the above-mentioned breaches in the afore-mentioned, letter. On the other hand, the contract was terminated illegally and wrongfully. It is further averred that extension demanded by the Contractor was necessitated by breaches of contract and the time was inadequate. It is further the case of the Contractor that he was surprised to know as to why the respondents issued 7 days notice dated 24. 5. 89 and 48 hours notice dated 1. 6. 89 terminating the contract in question despite the fact that extension was granted by the Union of India upto June 1989 vide its letter dated 12. 4. 1989. It has further been alleged in the application under Sec. 20 of Act that the respondents illegally and by force prevented him from lifting the materials, tools, plants, centring and shuttering, machinery and equipment lying at the site of the work, the details of which were submitted in the letter dated 3. 6. 1989. According to the Contractor, the respondents made the inventory of the materials belonging to him by unlocking the doors etc. and also recorded measurements unilaterally without affording an opportunity to him to present himself at that time. According to him he vide his letter dtd. 7/6/1969 notified his Claims against the respondents which exceeded Rs.1. 5.00 crore. List of the articles and machinery etc. were duly submitted vide letter dated 3. 6. 89. It is alleged that the respondents vide letter dated 13. 9. 1989 have intimated the contractor that he will have to verify the inventory already made between 25th and 29th September failing which all material and equipments belonging to him would be sold in an open auction. It is further alleged that the aforesaid letter of the respondents was duly replied by the Contractor on 23. 9. 89.