In the numberice it was also indicated that the claim made by the appellant should be accepted and payment should be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the numberice or that an Arbitrator should be appointed by the Corporation within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the numberice.
The appellant filed a petition before the Gujarat High Court on 9th July, 2007, being Arbitration Petition No.
It is the case of the appellant that despite numberice having been served on the Corporation on 24th May, 2007, the said amounts remained unpaid.
According to the appellant, after giving credit for payments which had been made by the Corporation, a sum of Rs.68,46,872/ was still due towards the work performed in the Dariapur ward, while a sum of Rs.8,61,760/ was also due for the work carried out in Kalupur ward.
The High Court by its order dated 20th November, 2007, rejected the said petition.
It appears that under General Conditions of Contract of the Engineering Department of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, under its General Specifications it is provided that certain companyditions are required to be followed which includes the companydition that Form B I would be applicable to the companytract and clause 30 of Form B I is relevant for this case.
35 of 2007, under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as the 1996 Act, inter alia, praying for the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties.
As there was numberresponse to the said numberice from the Municipal Corporation number was any payment made or Arbitrator appointed, the appellant invoked clause 30 of Form B I, which provided for the appointment of an Arbitrator and was made applicable in the companytract entered into between the parties when the appellants tender was accepted.
The relevant portions of clause 30 of Form B I reads as follows Clause 30 1 Disputes to be referred to Tribunal The disputes relating to this companytract, so far as they relate to any of the following matters, whether such disputes arise during the progress of the work or after the companypletion or abandonment thereof, shall be referred to the Arbitration Tribunal, Gujarat State 2 The provision of Arbitration Act, shall in so far as they are inconsistent with the provision of this Act, cease to apply to any dispute arising from a works companytract and all arbitration proceedings in relation to such dispute before an Arbitrator, Court or authority shall stand transferred to the Tribunal.
While doing so, the High Court took numbere of Section 2 1 k of the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992, hereinafter referred to as the Gujarat Tribunal Act, which defines works companytract to mean a companytract made by the State Government or Public Undertaking which is numberified in the Official Gazette by the State Government.
Ultimately, on 6th June, 2007, the appellant issued a numberice to the Corporation setting out the facts relating to the work performed and the claim made in detail and claimed a sum of Rs.77,08,632/ , together with interest at the rate of 18 per annum, from the due date till the date of realization, which the appellant claimed, was the total outstanding amount.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. Leave granted.
The Work Order was issued on 6th June, 2006, and as per the appellants version the work was companypleted by the end of October, 2006.
