Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1615 (RAJ)

Trimurti Constructions v. Union of India

2006-05-11

SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2006
Judgment Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.-In All these four applications the applicants seek to appoint independent Arbitral Tribunal under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1956. 2. The respondents raised preliminary objections about maintainability of applications in view of special condition of the contract which provides as under:-“The provision of Clauses 63 and 64 to the general conditions of contract will be applicable only for settlement of claim of dispute between the parties for values less than equal to 20% of the value of the contract, and when claims or disputes are of value more than 20% provision of disputes are of values more than 20% of the value of the contract, provisions of disputes are of values more than 20% of the value of the contract. Provision of Clause 63 and 64 and other relevant clauses of the general conditions of contract will not be applicable and arbitration will not be remedy for settlement of such disputed.” 3. Coming to the averments made in the instant applications I notice that in Application No. 14/2002 it was stated that the applicant completed the work of Rs. 19,26,500/-, out of which only Rs. 14,61,328/-were paid. The applicant, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 4,65,300/-alongwith Rs. 80,566/- and Rs. 1,67,850/- as security and loss of profit. In Application No. 30/2002 the applicant was awarded the work of RCC box amounting to Rs. 11,40,946.80/-. The applicant claimed Rs. 5,64,327.94 alongwith the amount of security and loss of profit. In Application No. 46/2002 the applicant completed the work of Rs. 13,14,300/-out of which only Rs. 3,67,000/-were paid. The applicant claimed a sum of Rs. 11,74,463/-alongwith the amount of security and loss of profit. In Application No. 02/2003 the applicant was awarded the work of JP providing additional washing cum inspection pit (BG) 580M with extension of existing pit line by 5000M amounting to Rs. 13,52,480.80/-. The applicant claimed the amount Rs. 15,01,039/-alongwith the amount of security and loss of profit. 4. Undeniably amount claimed by the applicants is more than 20% and in view of exclusionary clause contained in special condition of the contract, the disputes raised in the instant applications cannot be referred under Clauses 63 and 64 to the Arbitral Tribunal. 5. 13,52,480.80/-. The applicant claimed the amount Rs. 15,01,039/-alongwith the amount of security and loss of profit. 4. Undeniably amount claimed by the applicants is more than 20% and in view of exclusionary clause contained in special condition of the contract, the disputes raised in the instant applications cannot be referred under Clauses 63 and 64 to the Arbitral Tribunal. 5. My view finds support from the ratio indicated in State of AP vs. Obulu Reddy, 1999 (9) SCC 568, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under:-(5 Para )“ . . . Having perused GOMs No. 430 dated 210.1983 we have no doubt that it clearly provides for arbitration in respect of claims only upto Rs. 50,000/-and not above that amount, making it clear in Para 2 that the claims above Rs. 50,000/-are to be adjudicated by the Court of competent jurisdiction. 6. For theses reasons, I find no merit in the instant applications and the same accordingly stand dismissed.