Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 531 (GAU)

Krishna Devi @ Sabitri Devi v. Union of India

2008-07-25

J.CHELAMESWAR

body2008
JUDGMENT J. Chelameswar, J. 1. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with a prayer as follows: In the premises it is prayed that Your Lordships may be graciously pleased to call for records and issue notice to the opposite party to show cause as to why an Arbitrator should not be appointed to adjudicate and determine the disputes arising out of the Contract Agreement No. CWE/TEZ/8 of 1987-88 between M/s. S.R. Engineering Construction, a proprietary concern of late Sukh Ram Dhiman (now represented by his widow and successor under a duly probated Will) and the opposite-party Union of India represented by the Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Tezpur in accordance with Arbitration Clause contained in IAFW 2249 forming part of the said contract and upon hearing such cause/s make appropriate orders appointing Arbitrator in accordance with law and make and/or pass such other and/or further order/s as to your Lordships may seem just and proper. 2. The Petitioner's husband one Sukh Ram Dhiman carried on construction contracts in the name of a proprietary concern called M/s. S.R. Engineering Construction at Tezpur. The said proprietary concern entered into an agreement with the Respondents for construction of a permanent armament section under the Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Tezpur. Admittedly the Respondents paid some amount towards the final bill on 18.1.1993, the details of which may not be necessary for the present. 3. However, it is the case of the Petitioner that on 11.1.1993 the deceased husband of the Petitioner addressed a letter to the Chief Engineer raising certain disputes regarding the amount due to him. The Garrison Engineer, Air Force on 17.5.1993 declined to refer the dispute raised by the deceased by his letter dated 11.1.1993 to arbitration. 4. Thereupon the deceased filed a case No. 170/94 under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 before the Tis Hazari Court at Delhi seeking reference of the dispute to arbitration. Admittedly the said case was dismissed and on appeal confirmed by the Delhi High Court. The dismissal was on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. 5. On 21.5.1998 the husband of the Petitioner died. Subsequent to the death of her husband the Petitioner filed another application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 sometimes in the month of August, 2000 before the Asstt. District Judge, Tezpur. The dismissal was on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. 5. On 21.5.1998 the husband of the Petitioner died. Subsequent to the death of her husband the Petitioner filed another application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 sometimes in the month of August, 2000 before the Asstt. District Judge, Tezpur. By an order dated 10.5.2004 the above mentioned application (TS (Arb) No. 19/03) was dismissed by the learned Judge on the ground of its non-maintainability. Hence the present application. 6. It can be seen from the above narrated fact that the dispute, if any, pertains to the period 1987-93. The applicant or her predecessor-in-interest on more than one occasion approached the wrong forum for the same relief such as the one sought in the present application. It is unfortunate that they chose such a procedure. 7. Permitting the Petitioner to prosecute the present application, in my view, would be contrary to public policy as it would enable the applicant to agitate a stale claim. Such an application, in my view is barred by laches. Therefore, I do not see any reason to grant any relief, as sought for by the applicant. 8. The application is, therefore, dismissed. Application dismissed.