DES RAJ NAGPAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition filed under Section 11 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 (for brevity the Act) has been preferred by the contractor for appointment of an independent arbitrator.

(2.) It is not disputed that contract agreement no. CEUZ-04/95-96 was executed between the parties on 03.04.1995 (Annexure A). It has also not been disputed that the work was to commence on 24.04.1995 and it was to be completed on 31.03.1997. On 08.08.1997 the petitioner filed AA no. 150/1997 for appointment of an arbitrator. On transfer, the Court of District Judge Jammu appointed Shri D. K. Chaturvedi as arbitrator on 04.10.1997. Even appeal against the order of District Judge being CIMA no. 153/1998 was dismissed on 30.11.1998 by this Court. Accordingly the arbitrator announced the award on 27.03.1999 which was made rule of the Court vide order dated 28.02.2002. Against the order of District Judge dated 28.02.2002 appeal CIMA no. 11/2002 is pending before this Court.

(3.) The present petition has been preferred seeking reference of the dispute in respect of the work executed later on because the work remained under suspended animation from 31.03.1997 to 07.11.2000.In the present application it has been claimed that the work was resumed on 08.11.2000 after discussing the same in the meeting held on 05.11.2000 and the aforesaid work has been completed on 28.07.2001. In his rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has claimed that respondents were processing the claim of the petitioner in respect of deviations for flooring. In that regard reference has been made to letter dated 11.03.2005 sent by the Garrison Engineer to the petitioner. There appears to be admission in para (e) that the work under the contract was completed on 28.07.2001 and extension of time for completion of entire work under the contract had been granted. The case for grant of enhancement of deviation limit appears to be pending with the higher authorities. Likewise, reference has also been made to letters dated 22.08.2006, 18.05.2001, 02.09.2006 and 02.06.2004 which show that the dispute is alive before the authorities.