Civil Appeal No. 2622 of 2009, Arising out of SLP(C) No. 7221 of 2008. Case: UOI and Ors. Vs Onkar Nath Bhalla and Sons. Supreme Court (India)

Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 2622 of 2009, Arising out of SLP(C) No. 7221 of 2008
CounselFor Appellant: Shweta Garg, Navin Prakash, Ashish Gopal Garg and B. Krishna Prasad, Advs and For Respondents: Dinesh Verma, Rajat Sharma and Kailash Chand, Advs.
JudgesTarun Chatterjee and H.L. Dattu, JJ.
IssueArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11
Citation2009 (4) AWC 3799 (SC) , 2010 (1) MahLJ 28 , 2009 (6) SCALE 602 , (2009) 7 SCC 350 , 2009 (5) UJ 2346 (SC)
Judgement DateApril 17, 2009
CourtSupreme Court (India)

Judgment:

H.L. Dattu, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is directed against the judgment and the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in A.A. No. 193/2006 dated 26.4.2007. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has appointed Justice G. C. Mittal (retired Chief Justice) as the sole Arbitrator.

3) The facts in brief are: - the appellant, Engineer-in-Chief, had entered into a contract agreement with respondent/contractor. The contract was completed on 20.9.2002. A final bill was prepared, settling all claims, by the respondent and was forwarded to the appellants. Respondent after receiving payment of final bill signed the same, without any protest or reservation on 27.3.2001. Again after two years, respondent submitted a list of 20 claims to the appellants. Appellants in their reply stated that as per condition 65 of IAFW 2249 (General Conditions of Contracts) forming part of CA, no further claim shall be made by the contractor after submission of final bill and the claim now submitted are deemed to have been waived and extinguished. Respondent then approached E-in-C for appointment of arbitrator on 17.8.2003. Appellants did not appoint an Arbitrator as no dispute existed. Respondent went before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Amritsar on 19.9.2003. Civil Judge transferred the same to the Distt. Judge, which was further transferred to Punjab and Haryana High Court.

4) High Court allowing the application of the respondent, stated, that, as per the arbitration clause, as no affidavit has been filed with in the stipulated period of the notice invoking the arbitration clause, the appellants have forfeited their right to appoint the Arbitrator. Aggrieved by the said order, appellants are before us by this special leave petition.

5) The Learned counsel for the appellants would contend, that, the final bill of the work was signed by the applicant on 21.12.2000 and the payment for the same was made to the applicant on 27.3.2001. The applicant signed the final bill and no further claim certificate was also signed without any reservation and also got the payment of final bill by signing the same without any protest. It is further contended that when the agreement provided for arbitration by serving officer having degree in Engineering or equivalent, then a Retired High Court Judge cannot be appointed as an Arbitrator. To support his contentions he would rely on the decision of this court in P...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
9 cases
1 firm's commentaries
  • Law Of And Procedure For Appointment Of Arbitrator(S)
    • India
    • Mondaq India
    • 7 November 2012
    ...8 SCC 618. 62 (2002) 2 SCC 388 63 Vijay Kumar Sharma v. Raghunandan Sharma, (2010) 2 SCC 486. 64 Union of India v. Onkar Nath Bhalla, (2009) 7 SCC 350. 65 Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Raja Transport Private Limited, (2009) 8 SCC 66 Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of 1996 Act. 67 Grid Cor......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT