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 Number | Civil Appeal No. 2622 of 2009, Arising out of SLP(C) No. 7221 of 2008 |
Counsel | For Appellant: Shweta Garg, Navin Prakash, Ashish Gopal Garg and B. Krishna Prasad, Advs and For Respondents: Dinesh Verma, Rajat Sharma and Kailash Chand, Advs. |
Judges | Tarun Chatterjee and H.L. Dattu, JJ. |
Issue | Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11 |
Citation | 2009 (4) AWC 3799 (SC) , 2010 (1) MahLJ 28 , 2009 (6) SCALE 602 , (2009) 7 SCC 350 , 2009 (5) UJ 2346 (SC) |
Judgement Date | April 17, 2009 |
Court | Supreme 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-
Arbitration Case No. 123 of 2010. Case: GEI Industrial Systems Ltd Vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
...agreement can be inferred from the correspondence and transaction between the parties: Union of India v. Onkar Nath Bhalla and Sons, (2009) 7 SCC 350: (AIR 2009 SC 3168) and, Angang Group International Trade Corporation v. Pipavav Railway Corporation Limited, (2003) 10 SCC 51, to canvass th......
-
C.M.A. Nos. 1601 of 2000 and 585 of 2001. Case: Dhirubai D. and Company, Engineers and Contractors, rep. by its Partner, Mr. Amit Patel Vs Nizam Sugar Factory Limited, rep. by its General Manager (Personnel) and Ors.. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
...written by NSF rejecting the request of the DDC for enhancement of rates. He placed reliance on Union of India v. Omkarnath Bhalla (8) (2009) 7 SCC 350. Thirdly, he contends that in view of the specific bar created by clause 48 of GCC, the contractor is not entitled to claim any compensatio......
-
Arbitration Application No. 77 of 2009. Case: Sri V.G. Constructions Vs Maytas Infra Ltd.. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
...and in support of this argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in Union of India v. Onkar Nath Bhalla (2009) 7 SCC 350 and VISA International Ltd. v. Continental Resources (USA) Ltd. (2009) 2 SCC 55. Hence, he prayed that the arbitration application be Heard the couns......
-
Arbitration Case No. 3/2014. Case: Bansal & Company Vs Union of India. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
...coercion. In absence thereof, after accepting the final bill the dispute is no more arbitrable. Same view is taken by Supreme Court in (2009) 7 SCC 350 (Union of India vs. Onkar Nath Bhalla and Sons). The Apex Court made it clear that the court must determine existence of live dispute betwe......
-
Arbitration Case No. 123 of 2010. Case: GEI Industrial Systems Ltd Vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
...agreement can be inferred from the correspondence and transaction between the parties: Union of India v. Onkar Nath Bhalla and Sons, (2009) 7 SCC 350: (AIR 2009 SC 3168) and, Angang Group International Trade Corporation v. Pipavav Railway Corporation Limited, (2003) 10 SCC 51, to canvass th......
-
C.M.A. Nos. 1601 of 2000 and 585 of 2001. Case: Dhirubai D. and Company, Engineers and Contractors, rep. by its Partner, Mr. Amit Patel Vs Nizam Sugar Factory Limited, rep. by its General Manager (Personnel) and Ors.. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
...written by NSF rejecting the request of the DDC for enhancement of rates. He placed reliance on Union of India v. Omkarnath Bhalla (8) (2009) 7 SCC 350. Thirdly, he contends that in view of the specific bar created by clause 48 of GCC, the contractor is not entitled to claim any compensatio......
-
Arbitration Application No. 77 of 2009. Case: Sri V.G. Constructions Vs Maytas Infra Ltd.. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
...and in support of this argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in Union of India v. Onkar Nath Bhalla (2009) 7 SCC 350 and VISA International Ltd. v. Continental Resources (USA) Ltd. (2009) 2 SCC 55. Hence, he prayed that the arbitration application be Heard the couns......
-
Arbitration Case No. 3/2014. Case: Bansal & Company Vs Union of India. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
...coercion. In absence thereof, after accepting the final bill the dispute is no more arbitrable. Same view is taken by Supreme Court in (2009) 7 SCC 350 (Union of India vs. Onkar Nath Bhalla and Sons). The Apex Court made it clear that the court must determine existence of live dispute betwe......
-
Law Of And Procedure For Appointment Of Arbitrator(S)
...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......