RAJEEV CHOPRA Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under sections 8 and 20 of th; Arbitration Act, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, which has been filed by the plaintiff -contractor for appointing an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

(2.) The plaintiff is duly enlisted with the P. W. D. for execution of civil works. He has been doing such work for various Government departments, including the defendants. He had entered into an agreement with defendant No. I through defendant No, 2, for the execution of the work of "Excavation of trenches and laying of OFC on Chandigarh -Kalka -Parwanoo route" Photo -copy of this agreement is Ex, D -1 of the written statement filed in this case on behalf of the defendants. Although the case of the plaintiff is that he has duly completed the said work assigned to him to the entire satisfaction of the defendants, their stand in the written -statement is that this has not been done as the plaintiff had agreed to initially complete the work by 2nd November, 1991, the date was further extended upto 3lst January, 1992, but he could do only 60% of the work agreed between the parties.

(3.) Whereas the case of the plaintiff is that he was required to lay the cable at greater depths than specified in the agreement and for which he was entitled to additional payments as per the conditions therein, yet he was not paid for the extra work thus done by him, inspite of his repeated requests. Therefore, according to the plaintiff dispute exists between the parties relating to the following amounts, which are being claimed by him: (a) Amount due on account of the extra depth. Rs. 5,86,107 -00 (b) Interest on tire said amount at the rate of 18% p, a. (calculated upto 22 -10 -1994) Rs. 3,12,824 -00 On the other hand, the case of the defendants is that the plaintiff was to lay the Optical Fiber Cable at the depth of 1.35 Metres as per the agreement between the parties, however, as per the instructions issued by the department subsequently to him, he was asked to lay the cable at a depth of 1 65 Metres. The plaintiff, however, did not do so on the entire work, except to the extent of 393 Metres which too was done at a depth of L50 Metres according to the measurement book which has been duly accepted by the parties.