Second Appeal No. 1074 of 2004. Case: M.R. Mutha Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Second Appeal No. 1074 of 2004 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ramesh R. Mantri, Advocate and For Respondents: A.R. Borulkar, AGP |
| Judges | T. V. Nalawade, J. |
| Issue | Arbitration Act, 1940 [Repealed] - Section 32; Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 28 |
| Judgement Date | March 01, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
T. V. Nalawade, J.
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Regular Civil Appeal No. 113/1996, which was pending in the Court of Joint District Judge, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar and also against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No. 296/1994, which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar. The suit was filed by present respondent, State Government against the appellant, contractor for relief of declaration that the Arbitrator appointed by present appellant had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter and relief of injunction was prayed to prevent the Arbitrator from adjudicating the matter. Both the sides are heard. The matter is governed by provisions of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (Old Act).
2. It is the case of Government, plaintiff that the work allotted to present appellant was completed on 7.11.1986 and the final bill was paid on 15.7.1988. It is contended that as per Clause Nos. 54 and 55 of terms and conditions of the contract, it was necessary for the contractor to settle the claims before expiry of 30 days after completion of defect liability period. It is contended that first time on 21.2.1994, by notice, the contractor informed that he had appointed Arbitrator and so, the appointment of Arbitrator is not as provided under the contract and the Arbitrator has no jurisdiction.
3. The defendant filed written statement to contest the matter. The defendant admitted that the final bill was accepted by defendant on 15.7.1988. But, defendant contended that it was accepted under protest. It is contended that by letter dated 19.7.1988 the defendant had informed to the plaintiff that bill was accepted under protest and defendant had more claims with regard to extra items. It is the case of defendant that some correspondence was there between plaintiff and defendant, but no decision was taken in respect of claims made by defendant and only in December 1993, it was informed that the claims of the defendant were rejected. It is contended that the cause of action took place in December 1993 due to such information and then the steps were taken to appoint Arbitrator.
4. The Trial Court held that the Arbitrator appointed by the defendant has no jurisdiction in view of the terms and conditions of the contract. Similar observations are made by the first appellate Court. Though the Courts below have considered to some extent the claims of the defendant of extra items, in view of...
To continue reading
Request your trial