Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2659 (PNJ)

Deepak Kumar Jindal v. Punjabi University Patiala

2006-07-11

HEMANT GUPTA

body2006
Judgment 1. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 14.6.2006, whereby in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement, the matter was referred to arbitration and the suit was dismissed. 2. The petitioner was granted a contract for construction of Girls hostel at Talwandi Sabo vide allotment letter dated 5.5.2005. The conditions of the contract have been appended by the petitioner as annexure P.4. Clause 25a of the said contract pertains to disputes and arbitration. On 27.4.2006, the Executive Engineer of the University invoked clause 3 (b) of the agreement and the remaining work of the building was taken over by the University to be carried out in the manner considered appropriate by it. The said communication addressed by the Executive engineer was challenged by the petitioner in a suit for declaration. In the said suit, an application was filed by the University to refer the matter to arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause in the agreement. The said application has been allowed vide the order impugned in the present revision petition. 3. The sole argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the letter dated 27.4.2006, has been issued by the Engineerin-Charge and in terms of Clause 25a of the agreement, the petitioner cannot seek arbitration unless there is settlement by Engineer-in-Charge. Since the action has been taken by the Engineer-in-Charge, the petitioner cannot seek any settlement from such Engineer-in-Charge and, therefore, the stage of settling dispute by Arbitration, has yet not matured. 4. I am unable to agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Clause 25a of the agreement deals with different situations including the situations of termination, abandonment or breach of the contract by the petitioner and reference for settlement by the Engineer-In-Charge. Still further, it contemplates that if Engineer-in-Charge fails to convey his decision within a period of 60 days, the Contractor may refer the dispute for arbitration. Since remedy has been provided in Clause 25a of the agreement, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order, which may entitle the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of Civil Court in a suit for declaration. Since remedy has been provided in Clause 25a of the agreement, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order, which may entitle the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of Civil Court in a suit for declaration. The petitioner having entered into an agreement containing settlement by Engineer-in-Charge, has to take recourse of the provisions of the agreement in case of any dispute and cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for adjudication of disputes arising out of the Contract. 5. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present petition is dismissed.