DONCON TRADE CENTRE PATRATU Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELD LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (shortly 'the said Act') the petitioner has prayed for appointment of Arbitrator and for reference of the dispute between the parties for adjudication by the appointed Arbitrator.

(2.) PETITIONER 's case is that pursuant to a tender notice floated by the respondents for transportation of earth for filing up of subsidence area, Bhurkunda Colliery. Pursuant to the tender notice dated 14.8.1996 the petitioner, being a registered contractor, participated in the said tender and its tender having been found to be lowest, was accepted vide concurrence letter dated 27.3.1997. Consequent thereupon, work order was issued under the signature of respondent No. 4, the Assistant General Manager, Central Coalfield Ltd. Bhurkunda, Hazaribagh accepting the offer of the petitioner for the work of transportation of 39,000 H -3 earth for filing SAM -B of Bhurkunda colliery. In terms of the tender notice the petitioner said to have deposited earnest money and also security money. It was mentioned in the work order that the funds of Rs. 4 lacks was approved in the capital budget for the financial years 1996 -97. The petitioner alleged to have complied with the terms and conditions as mentioned in the work order and an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the opposite parties on 23.5.1997. In terms of the agreement the petitioner commenced work on 17.4.1997 and requested the opposite party No. 3 to release its first running account bill amounting to Rs. 6.98 lacks in respect of the work already performed by the petitioner under the supervision of the concerned authority. By letter dated 25.6.1997 opposite party No. 3 communicated the petitioner that in view of the fact that funds to the extent of Rs. 4,00,000/ - was certified and, therefore, the bill for Rs. 6.89 lacs could not be accepted at this stage. The petitioner replied to the said letter pointing out that the total value of the work was Rs. 17.55 lacs and, as such the bill covering a sum of Rs. 6.98 lacks cannot be detained and, accordingly, requested the opposite parties to release the fund. Inspite of series of letters and representations made by the petitioner time to time the opposite parties did not release the fund. Lastly, it is contended by the petitioner that although it completed work but it was not paid any amount in spite of submission of running account bill. The petitioner then sent legal notice through his lawyer to the opposite parties for payment of the amount. However, on great persuasion the opposite parties released a sum of Rs. 8.16 lacks out of the total amount of Rs. 10.50 lacs. Thus the petitioner is still entitled to get the balance amount together with earnest and security money. The petitioner then filed a writ petition being CWJC No. 1181/2001 which was eventually dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner, therefore, prayed to the Court to make appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute raised by the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.