VIJ CONSTRUCTION LTD. Vs. MATA VAISHNO DEVI SHRINE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contractor has filed the instant petition under Section 11 of the J & K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 with a prayer for appointment of an arbitrator to settle the dispute which has risen between the parties. There is no dispute that an agreement for construction of Spiritual Growth Center at Katra was executed between the parties on 7th day of July 2004 (Annexure-R). Admittedly, there is Clause 8 of the agreement which clearly provides for Arbitration of disputes emerging from the agreement. The aforesaid clause reads as under:

(2.) There was a receipt executed on 27.07.2009 by contractor with the statement to the effect that an amount of Rs. 9,71,115/- has been received in full and final settlement of dues after due discussion with the Chief Executive Officer and as per the report submitted by the Committee constituted by the Board. The sheet anchor of the arguments advanced by the counsel for respondents is that once the receipt has been executed on 27.07.2009 accepting the amount as full and final payment of all dues of the contractor then no dispute would survive. However, the petitioner has raised various issues and had requested for disbursement of further amount of Rs. 24,24,261/-.

(3.) Mr. Abrol, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that objection raised by the respondent with regard to execution of receipt acknowledging full and final payment of the dues would not be such a material factor for the Court to make reference. According to learned counsel, the receipt was executed under coercion and restraint because the contractor was in need of capital and it would not result in wiping out the surviving claims depicted in various paras of the petition. In support of his submission learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in case titled as National Insurance Company Limited v.Boghara Plolyfab Pvt. Ltd., 2009 AIR(SC) 170 and has argued that such an issue with regard to financial constraint would either be decided by Chief Justice himself or it could be left for the arbitrator. Similar view has been taken in Union of India and others v. Master Construction Company, 2011 12 SCC 349.