WALIA BUILDERS Vs. BIHAR STATE EXPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) PRECISELY , it is submitted by Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant that the learned single Judge of this Court having noticed the fact that on the day when the authorities wanted to invoke the arbitration clause there was no concluded contract and in view of the decisions rendered in cases of Konkan Railway Corporation Limited and Others vs. Mehul Construction Company [(2000)7 Supreme Court Cases 2001] and Angang Group INTNL Trade Corporation vs. Pipavav Railway Corporation Ltd. [(2003)10 Supreme Court Cases 51], dismissed the writ 'application in limine. It is further contended that though it may be a case that the concluded contract had come to an end when a prayer was made for appointment of the Arbitrator, the subsequent correspondence made in between the parties would show that the contract was given a new lease of life and contract work proceeded, which would be evident from annexure 7 to the writ application, and, therefore, the parties had the occasion to invoke the arbitration clause for appointment of an Arbitrator.

(3.) FROM this stipulation made in the correspondence, as referred to above, it appears that the parties were still in agreement for execution of the work and this being the situation, the appellant was entitled to invoke the arbitration clause of the earlier agreement. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that annexure 7 of the writ application brought on record could not have been ignored. Learned counsel further contended that ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (supra) no longer holds good, as this judgment was noticed by the Apex Court in case of S.B.P. & Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. [(2005)6 Supreme Court Cases 288] [: 2006(1) PLJR (SC)74], and, ultimately, the matter was referred to a seven Judges ' Bench for reconsideration of the matter.