Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 55 (JHR)

LAL BABU SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR

2001-01-24

M.Y.EQBAL

body2001
Judgment : M. Y. EQBAL, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Mr. S. J. Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents. This is an application under Section 11 (6) (a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 wherein a prayer has been made for appointment of an independent arbitrator for reference of dispute for adjudication. ( 2 ) THE petitioners case, inter alia, is that he was awarded a contract work by the Superintending engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Circle, Ranchi and an agreement was entered into between the parties being agreement No. 2452 of 1989-90 and contract was for widening and strengthening of k. T. K. Road. The petitioner completed the major portion of the work but due to shortage of bitumen and road roller, which was to be supplied by the Road Construction Department, he could not finish his work. The Department failed to supply materials and other requirements in spite of reminders an ultimately the petitioner was forged to stop the work. The petitioner said to have reminded up to october 1994. It is stated that final measurement of the work was taken in the month of november to December 1994 only but the respondents failed to make payment and deleted some of the claims of the petitioner. The petitioner objected to the said deletion made by the Executive Engineer. However, the Department informed the petitioner that matter of objection was under consideration, vide letter dated 10/12/1996 and 13/12/1997. The petitioner thereafter came to know from the lettendated 16/7/1998 and 16/2/1999 that the Department has not solved the dispute. ( 3 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating, inter alia, that. clause 23 of the Agreement was deleted by the respondents, vide, letter dated 18-11-1992 and as such, there is no question of appointment of Arbitrator. It is further stated that as per clause 32 (1) (c) of the Agreement, the claim is not admissible for short supply and/or no supply and/or delay is supply of departmental materials and/or equipment. Various other facts have been stated in the counter-affidavit. ( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that the agreement was entered into and the work was awarded in 1990 and under the agreement clause 23 was available to the parties. According to the respondents it was deleted/cancelled in 1992. Various other facts have been stated in the counter-affidavit. ( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that the agreement was entered into and the work was awarded in 1990 and under the agreement clause 23 was available to the parties. According to the respondents it was deleted/cancelled in 1992. The respondents in their counter-affidavit have not taken a defence that the claim or the application is barred by limitation. The only defence taken by the respondents is that the claim is not admissible. In my opinion, whether the claim is admissible or not and whether the petitioner is entitled to the amount claimed by him are the questions to be decided by the Arbitrator. ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, dispute exists between the parties which needs adjudication through arbitrator. The petitioner has prayed that an independent sole arbitrator may be appointed to resolve the dispute. On this prayer, the respondent has not said that any person other than independent sole arbitrator be appointed. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, allow this application and appoint Honble S. Roy, a retired Judge of this Court, as an Arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute. The matter is referred to the said Arbitrator with a direction to decide the claim in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Application allowed. --- *** --- .