M. K. Chawla ( 1 ) IN a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act the petitioners, M/s. Global Contract Services pray for the reference of disputes mentioned in paragraph 11 of the petition to an Arbitrator to be appointed by the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi, as per the arbitration clause. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that in response to an invitation to tender the petitioner submitted tender for the construction of battery and relayroom Type I and II, single storeyed quarters, installation of country hand pump and other connected works at Rohtak Junction, Samar Gopalpur, Karainthi, Kila Zafargarh, Jai Jai Wanti, Kinana and Jind Junction stations in connection with tokenless system of work at Rohtak-Jind Section. The tender of the petitioner was acepted by the Chief Engineer (Construction) II, Northern Railway for and on behalf of the President of India. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 9,000. 00 towards the earnest money and security deposit against the subject work. As per the terms of the contract the work was to be completed within 6 months from the date of the issue of the letter dated 26-8-1978. The petitioner however, could not achieve the desired progress in the work as the drawings for the most of the stations had not been approved and supplied in time inspite of the repeated requests and reminders. The progress of the work also sufferred due to shortage and non-availability of diesel and removal of under ground cable pipes and fixtures by the respondents. The respondent/department also failed to give coal permit in time resulting in the further delay in the completion of work. However, inspite of these hindrances the petitioner was able to complete the job and also removed the defects pointed out by the respondent/department. ( 3 ) IT is the further case of the petitioner that inspite of repeated visits to the office of the respondent, the payment for certain items of work done by the petitioner were not included in the final bill. As the payments were being delayed unnecessaily the petitioner had no other alternative but to sign the final bill under protest on 11-10-1985. As the payments were being delayed unnecessaily the petitioner had no other alternative but to sign the final bill under protest on 11-10-1985. Ultimately the petitioner vide their letter dated 31-10-1985 invoked the arbitration clause and requested the General Manager of respondent No. 2 to appoint an arbitrator to enter upon reference and decide the disputes mentioned in para 11 of the petition. The respondents inspite of the service of the notice have not cared to abide by the terms of the agreement which forced the petitioner to file the present petition. ( 4 ) THE respondents, in reply, raised the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present petition by alleging that the petitioner had signed the no Claim Certificate , in the final bill on 11-10-1985 voluntarily and as such the disputes mentioned in the petition are not liable to be referred to the Arbitrator; that the disputes even otherwise fall within the excepted matters in view of clause 45 (a) of the General Conditions of Contract, 1971. On merit the respondents took up the stand that the petitioner all along was reponsible for not completing the work within the stipulated period and even after numous extensions. As a result of the various acts of omission and commission the respondents suffered loss on account of delay in the use and increase in expenditure on Supervisory Staff. At no point of time could the petitioner point out any item which was left over or not entered in the final bill. Even otherwise none of the claims put forth by the petitioner are tenable and as such is not entitled to the appointment of any Arbitrator. It is also alleged that no comments can be made against any dispute in the absence of the details. The petition being false to the knowlede of the petitioner merits dismissal. ( 5 ) IN the replication the petitioners controverted the pleas raised by the respondents in their reply and reiterated the facts as stated in the main petition. ( 6 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their help gone through the record carefully. ( 5 ) IN the replication the petitioners controverted the pleas raised by the respondents in their reply and reiterated the facts as stated in the main petition. ( 6 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their help gone through the record carefully. ( 7 ) WITHOUT requiring the parties to file the affidavits by way of evidence the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the disputes mentioned in paragraph 11 of the petition do arise out of the contract and are liable to be referred to the sole arbitrator in terms of the arbitrrtion clause contained in the agreement. Learned counsel for the respondents however, raised the preliminary objection that in view of the issuance of a no claim certificate the petitioner cannot come forward and ask for the determination of any dispute by the Arbitrator. This preliminary objection to any mind has no substance in view of the finding given in a Judgment reported as Union of India v. Jai Lal Mehra1. Under similar circumstances the Division Bench of this court held as under ; "it was held by the Division Bench that as observed by V. D. Misra, J. in Union of India "v. Sri Narain Dass F. A. O. 219-D/1965 dated 26-4-1971 that the terms of the arbitration clause were very wide and would include the dispute whether signing of no-claim certificate amounts to waiver. The arbitrator may be required to go into the question whether the said certificate was made voluntarily. In our opinion, the Single Judge was right in referring the disputes to arbitration and in directing the General Manager of Northern Railway to appoint an Arbitrator in accordance with the Arbitration clause. " ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents has contended that all the disputes fall within the definition of excepted matters as stated in clause 63 of the General Conditions of Contract and cannot be made the subject matter of reference to the Arbitrator, I have carefully perused each and every dispute forming part of paragraph 11 of the petition. To my mind none of these disputes is covered under the difinition of excepted matters , almost all the disputes relate to the loss or the extra expenditure which the petitioner has incurred in executing/completing the work. To my mind none of these disputes is covered under the difinition of excepted matters , almost all the disputes relate to the loss or the extra expenditure which the petitioner has incurred in executing/completing the work. It is for the Arbitrator to assess the additional costs which the petitioner might have incurred in executing/completing the work and as to whether the payments against these items have been made to the petitioner or not. Such disputes can only be gone into by the Arbitrator. ( 9 ) NO other point has been urged nor any point requires going into. As a result of the above discussion I hereby accept the petition and direct the respondent No. 2 to appoint an arbitrator within 2 months from the date of comunication of this order to enter upon the reference and make and publish the award within the statutory period.