KALYANI CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. NG PROJECTS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the Act of 1996') has been filed for appointment of an arbitrator in view of clause 19 of the work order dated 15-7-2016.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the applicant firm was engaged in the business of construction, supply of building material. On being satisfied with its quotation following a notice inviting tender it was issued work Order No.NGPL-DCPL-JVKalyani Constn/AB Doubling/2016-17101602 dated 15-7-2016 by respondents for the contracted work of construction of station buildings, staff quarters and other structures at Rajgarh on Alwar-Bandikui doubling to the tune of Rs.5 crore. The applicant firm completed the work of Rs.1,36,02,528.33, out of which it claims only Rs.68,67,372/- has been paid as on 31-7-2017. Its case is that despite submitting all bills, vouchers regarding the aforesaid work the remaining amount of Rs.67,35,156.33 has not been paid. Despite several demands when the due and outstanding amount was not paid, the applicant sent a registered demand notice on 14-10-2017 for payment of due and outstanding amount. But to no avail. Aside of aforesaid amount due to the applicant firm, its raw material to the tune of Rs.4,09,250/- also laying on the work site which has been wrongly detained by the non-applicant. Thus a total amount Rs.71,44,406.33 in the aggregate is outstanding recoverable from respondents and payable to the applicant. Besides, the respondents have also deducted a sum of Rs.1,39,623- towards TDS from the applicant's PAN account No.26 and the same has not been transferred to the tax authorities and is also yet to be accounted for to the applicant firm's satisfaction.

(3.) In the circumstances, the applicant sent legal notice on 15- 11-2017 through his counsel to the non applicant firm for referring the disputes to the arbitrator as per clause 19 of terms of the work order dated 15-7-2016. On receipt of notice dated 15-11-2017 the respondents vide letter dated 25-11-2017, instead of referring the dispute to the Arbitrator sought to delay the matter, and with that intent required the applicant to settle the disputes agitated by it by mutual consultation with the Managing Director of Ms.Deem Construction company. Pursuant to letter dated 25-11-2017 although the applicant approached the Managing Director but in vain. Hence this application for appointment of an arbitrator.