Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 211 (DEL)

GAGAN SAHNI v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

2007-02-01

A.K.SIKRI

body2007
A. K. SIKRI, J. ( 1 ) THE applicant, who is sole proprietor of M/s. Yugal Constructions, is engaged in the business of executing various types of civil works for the Government departments for quite some time. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent No. 1') invited tender for 'construction of Community Centre at Katwaria Sarai'. The work was awarded to the applicant vide letter No. EE (Project)/sz/tc/05 dated 23. 10. 1998 by the respondent No. 2 for a contractual value of Rs. 41,69,498/-, which was 33. 53% above the tender amount, which is Rs. 31,15,053/ -. The stipulated period for completion of the said work was 12 months, which was to be reckoned from the 10th day of the work order. Thereafter, the work order dated 2. 11. 1998 was issued to the applicant by the respondents, in pursuance of which the applicant was to start the work on 12. 11. 1998. The agreement, which was entered into between the parties, contains an arbitration clause. Case setup by the applicant is that despite his bona fide and genuine efforts to complete the work within the stipulated period, the respondents delayed the execution of the work till the elections were over and it was only in the month of September 1999, after a delay of 10 months, the respondents, for the first time, had asked the applicant to commence the work. It is stated that due to the hindrances created by the residents of the nearby locality, the respondent could not commence the work and the respondents directed him to wait until further orders. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that, even thereafter, on one pretext or the other the completion of the work got hampered. The respondents, in the meantime, had also issued two separate work orders dated 26. 12. 2002 for a sum of Rs. 5,19,581/- and Rs. 9,88,829/- respectively. Submission is that as per measurement of the work done, as recorded by the respondents on 7. 5. 2002, work to the tune of Rs. 44. 34 lacs had already been completed by the applicant against the awarded value of Rs. 41. 69 lacs. ( 2 ) THE grievance of the applicant is that even after completing the work allotted, the respondents failed to release the payments to him despite the applicant sending numerous letters for the said purpose. 44. 34 lacs had already been completed by the applicant against the awarded value of Rs. 41. 69 lacs. ( 2 ) THE grievance of the applicant is that even after completing the work allotted, the respondents failed to release the payments to him despite the applicant sending numerous letters for the said purpose. Ultimately, vide letter dated 13. 6. 2006, the applicant approached the respondents and requested to take over the work done and make final payment within 30 days of the receipt of the letter. However, no heed was paid to all such requests advanced by the applicant. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant invoked Clause 25, which is an arbitration clause, of the General Conditions of Contract vide letter dated 17. 7. 2006 for appointment of an arbitrator. This letter also contains the claims made by the applicant towards the work done, damages etc. The respondent no. 3, who is the appointing authority, made no such appointment till date and hence, the present petition. ( 3 ) ON 4. 8. 2006, when this application came up for preliminary hearing, notice was directed to be issued to the respondents for 25. 9. 2006. On 25. 9. 2006, learned counsel for the respondents appeared and the case was adjourned for 13. 12. 2006 on joint request. However, on 13. 12. 2006, the Bench was on leave and the matter was adjourned for today. Record reveals that no reply has been filed till date. Since the respondent No. 3 failed to appoint the arbitrator in terms of Clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract within the prescribed period of 30 days and even thereafter, it is now left for this Court for appointment of the arbitrator. ( 4 ) THIS application is, accordingly, allowed. Hon'ble Ms. Justice Usha Mehra (Retd.) is appointed as an Arbitrator. The fee of the learned Arbitrator is fixed at Rs. 15,000/- per hearing, subject to a maximum of 15 hearings. She shall also be paid clerkage and such other expenses. The fee and the expenses shall be borne by the parties in equal proportion.