Arbitration Case No. 3/2014. Case: Bansal & Company Vs Union of India. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Arbitration Case No. 3/2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri Arun Dudawat, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri Chetan Kanoongo, Advocate |
| Judges | Sujoy Paul, J. |
| Issue | Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6) |
| Judgement Date | June 24, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India) |
Order:
Sujoy Paul, J.
1. The applicant has filed this application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, the 'Act') for appointment of an arbitrator.
2. The respondents awarded a contract for special repairs of certain dwelling units to the applicant at Gwalior. Pursuant to aforesaid contract, a work order dated 24.8.2010 was issued (Annexure A/1). The applicant successfully completed the awarded work and submitted his final bill. It is the case of the applicant that while making the payment of final bill, the chase cutting of conduit has been scored out by the respondents without any authority under the contract, namely, IAFW 2249. The applicant further contended that aforesaid scoring has been carried out by the respondents behind his back and without prior intimation and, therefore, the said amount needs to be reimbursed. The applicant preferred an application in this regard on 2.2.2013 (Annexure A/3). It is submitted that thereafter also the applicant preferred application dated 12.7.2013, Annexure A/4, which was replied by the respondents on 3.8.2013.
3. Shri Arun Dudawat, learned counsel for the applicant, by taking this Court to Clause 6-A and 70 of the agreement submits that the respondents have erred in not appointing the arbitrator. He submits that the respondents erred in not accepting the request made in the application dated 29.8.2013, Annexure A/6. He criticized the order dated 27.9.2013, whereby the respondents have declined the request of appointing arbitrator on the ground that after submission of final bill and accepting the amount without protest, no dispute exists and, therefore, declined to appoint the arbitrator. Shri Dudawat drew attention of this Court on Annexure R-2 dated 25.2.2013 to submit that this document itself shows that there existed a dispute.
4. Per Contra, Shri Chetan Kanoongo, learned counsel for the other side, relied on clause 65 of the agreement to submit that no further claim by the contractor was acceptable after submission of final bill. Such subsequent claim needs to be treated as waived and extinguished. He submits that the final bill was preferred much before 16.4.2013. Final payment was made on 16.4.2013 and thereafter nothing remains to be done in the matter. By relying on certain judgments, he submits that in absence of any live and existing dispute, there is no question of any direction for appointment of arbitrator. In para 1 of the reply, it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial