LAWS(HPH)-2012-5-62

MK MIGLANI Vs. HIMUDA

Decided On May 10, 2012
M.K. MIGLANI, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR Appellant
V/S
HIMUDA, NIGAM VIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (for short, the Act) for appointment of Arbitrator in agreement No. 4 of 1996-97. It has been stated that petitioner and respondent had entered into an agreement for referring their dispute relating to work of Social Housing Colony at Shogi, Shimla i.e. 20 Nos. HIG-1 houses, 12 Nos. HIG II houses, 13 Nos. MIG I houses, 10 Nos. MIG II houses, 112 Nos HIG I flats and 24 Nos. MIG-I flats including internal and external services (SH: C/o 8 Nos. HIG II flats including internal water supply and sanitary Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes installation and development of site) for a sum of Rs.36,40,668.45 vide award letter dated 24.05.1997 to the sole arbitration of a person to be appointed by Chief Executive Officer of HIMUDA. It has been stated that the work awarded to the claimant was delayed and finally completed on 31.12.2001. The delay in execution of the work was attributable to the respondent, but still the respondent imposed penalty of Rs. 3,64,066/- on the petitioner for delay in completion of work. The penalty was later on reduced. The penalty was paid by the petitioner.

(2.) It has been stated that on 12.04.2001 the petitioner submitted a bill alongwith details of charges to the respondent. The full and final payment of entire work was computed to be Rs.3,98,706/-. After raising the bill on 12.4.2001, the petitioner submitted further reminder letters for the payment on 14.3.2003 and 26.12.2003, but till date the respondent has not settled the claim of the petitioner and no amount has been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner has raised the claim of following amounts from the respondent:-

(3.) It has been submitted that clause 25 of the agreement provides appointment of Arbitrator. The petitioner issued notice to respondent On 12.9.2011 for appointment of Arbitrator, but despite that the respondent has not appointed the Arbitrator, hence petition.