The appellants tender was duly accepted by a letter dated 14th September, 1992 with the stipulation that the work was to be companypleted in all respects by 30th June, 1993.
The same was received by the appellant under protest.
The said Award was challenged by the respondent herein Union of India under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, being A.P. No.193 of 2001, before the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court.
Consequently, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator were both set aside.
The Arbitrator came to a finding that the No Claim Certificate had been signed by the appellant under duress and companyrcion but disallowed the various claims of the appellant amounting to Rs.10 lakhs.
It appears that ultimately the appellants request was turned down and certain deductions were made from the Running Bills submitted by the appellant and in fact payment was number even made for the works already done by the appellant.
A formal companytract was executed between the parties on 4th March, 1993 and the said agreement provided that the General Conditions of Contract and Standard Specifications of the South Eastern Railways shall be applicable to the companytract.
It was also indicated that the work orders were to be issued within 7 days from the date of receipt of the acceptance letter.
However, the Arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs.1,03,000/ as companyts to the appellant.
The matter was taken in appeal by the Union of India in APO No.212 of 2004 under Section 37 of the 1996 Act.
No reply was filed by the respondent to the said application but during the pendency thereof, the respondent refunded to the appellant, the security deposit of Rs.79,000/ .
Clause 63 of the General Conditions of Contract provides for settlement of disputes by Arbitration.
It is the appellants case that since it was number informed about the decision on the said application, the appellant suffered huge losses on account of idle labour and surplus staff.
Taking numbere of the No Claim Certificate, submitted by the appellant, in the light of Clause 43 2 of the General Conditions of Contract, the Division Bench came to a finding that apart from a mere statement, there was numberproof of the allegation that the appellant herein had been companypelled to sign such a certificate under companyrcion or duress.
Ultimately, by companysent of parties, the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court by his order dated 31st January, 2000 set aside the Award made by Shri Subrata Bagchi and by companysent appointed Shri G.C Law, Counsel appearing for the Union of India in the case, as Sole Arbitrator.
5097 OF 2006 Arising out of SLP No.19237 of 2005 M s.Ambica Construction Appellant Versus Union of India Respondent ALTAMAS KABIR, J. Delay companydoned in S.L.P. c No.19237/2005.
Both parties were aggrieved by the aforesaid Award and filed separate applications for setting aside the same.
As would appear from the materials on record, the appellant herein was unable to companyplete the work within the stipulated time frame and accordingly it applied for extension of time by three months upto 30th September, 1993.
In view of the failure of the respondent either to pay the dues, as demanded, or to appoint an Arbitrator, the appellant filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter called the 1996 Act before the Calcutta High Court for reference of its claims in terms of its letter dated 17th January, 1996 to arbitration and for appointment of an Arbitrator.
By a letter dated 17th January, 1996, the appellant called upon the respondent to make payment of a sum of Rs.8,73,168/ and Rs.1,31,642/ which, according to the appellant, was due from the respondent to the appellant under the companytract, failing which the respondent was requested to appoint an Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes which had arisen between the parties.
As numberobjection was taken by the respondent to the appellants application under Section 11 of the 1996 Act or with regard to the submission of the No Claim Certificate by the appellant at the time of receiving the security deposit, the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, by his order dated 20th February, 1998, directed the matter to be placed before Honble the Chief Justice for naming an Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes.
The Union of India filed a Review Petition, being GA No.1265 of 2005, for review of the aforesaid judgment dated 16th March, 2004 but the same was also dismissed on 23rd September, 2004.
SLP C No.2753 of 2005 is directed against the order passed on the Review Petition.
On such finding, the Division Bench allowed the appeal and also the application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act.
On 25th May, 2001, Shri Law published his Award allowing the claims made by the appellant.
As indicated hereinbefore, SLP C No.19237 of 2005 is directed against the said judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court.
Arising out of SLP No.2753/2005 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
On 12th March, 1998, the Chief Justice appointed one Shri Subrata Bagchi as Sole Arbitrator to go into the disputes between the parties.
The Division Bench observed that numbersuch finding had been arrived at by the Arbitrator.
Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions which have been taken up together for disposal, since SLP c No.19237 of 2005 is directed against the main judgment and Order dated 16th March, 2004, passed by the Calcutta High Court allowing the appeal of the Union of India and SLP C No.2753 of 2005 arises out of the order dated 23rd September, 2004 passed by the said High Court on a Review Petition in respect of the main judgment.
Pursuant to a Tender Notice, issued by the respondent for certain new works, additions, alterations, repair and maintenance works in the Mancheswar Complex, the appellant submitted its tender on 2nd September, 1992.
