MOHINDRA BROS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner- M/s Mahindra Bros seeks appointment of Arbitrator on the disputes projected by it in Paragraph No. 31 of the Petition which are stated to have arisen between it and the Union of India in respect of Contract CA No. CEUZ-19/2003-04, Prov. Of OTM Accm for 3rd TRD INF BN at Bhadarwah, because Union of India had refused to appoint Arbitrator on the ground that resort to arbitration in terms of Condition 70 of IAF 2249, General Conditions of Contract forming part of the Contract entered into between the parties could be had only if the parties agreed therefor in writing, and in any case not until the Contract was either completed or otherwise terminated. Union of India contests the petitioner's request for appointment of Arbitrator urging that having completed only 75% of the work, the petitioner was not entitled to seek appointment of Arbitrator unless the work was completed by it or was otherwise rescinded. The claims of the petitioner are stated false and inflated.

(2.) According to Union of India, having failed to complete the work even after six years of the original period of completion indicated in the Contract Agreement and the extension allowed to it from time to time, the petitioner was not granted further extension of the Contract period and was told to first complete the work before its case was considered for extension of Contract.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.