Arbitration Petition No. 1215 of 2012. Case: State of Maharashtra Vs G.H. Khatri & Co. and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Arbitration Petition No. 1215 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: J.S. Saluja, AGP and For Respondents: F. Reis, Sr. Adv. and Anita Agarwal i/by J.S. Jinsiwale, Adv. |
| Judges | R. P. Sondurbaldota, J. |
| Issue | Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 |
| Judgement Date | January 12, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
R. P. Sondurbaldota, J.
-
State of Maharashtra has filed this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Arbitration Act") to challenge the arbitral award dated 9th August, 2010. Respondent no.1 the original claimant has filed Execution Application No. 300 of 2012 in this Court and had applied for warrant of attachment of the properties of the petitioner in execution of the Award. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court with the present petition. There was delay of 157 days in filing the petition which has been condoned by the order dated 5th September, 2012.
-
The petitioner had invited tender for construction of Arogya Bhavan building comprising of 9 floors. Respondent no.1 was the successful bidder. The contract was issued to it on 27th December, 2002 for the total price of Rs. 12,62,79,256/-. The project was scheduled for completion on 26th December, 2004. It was, however, actually completed on 30th November, 2005. According to respondent no.1, the main reasons for the delay in completion of the work were, (i)Clear possession of the site was not given because of the trees at the work site. (ii)delay in, plinth check and "work done certificate" by Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation., (iii)changes in the levels of pile caps, (iv)changes in the founding levels of UG tank and Pump House., and (v)hold on the work ordered by the petitioner vide letter dated 12th August, 2004 in part of the area above the 8th floor.
-
The facts constituting the delay alleged by respondent no.1 were not disputed by the petitioner. It was, however, claimed that the delay due to those reasons had not seriously hindered execution of the work. According to it, the work was delayed primarily on account of poor management and slow progress on the part of respondent no.1.
-
As per Clause-24.1, the decisions as regards the payments to be made for the work done by respondent no.1 was to be taken by the Engineer of the petitioner. In case, respondent no.1 was dissatisfied with the decision of the Engineer, Clause-25.1 and 25.2 of the Contract provided that, he could approach the Adjudicator. Under Clause-36, the Adjudicator was to adjudicate upon the differences between the Engineer and respondent no.1. In case of dis-satisfaction with the decision of the Adjudicator, the contract provided for resolution of the dispute by reference to the panel of arbitrators consisting of 3 arbitrators, one to be nominated by the petitioner, one to be nominated by the respondent and the third, the presiding Arbitrator to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial