Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as under Facts in CA No.6400/2016 On 14.07.2010, Northern Railways awarded the companytract for misc.
Facts in CA No.6420/2016 An agreement dated 17.01.2012 was entered into between the Northern Railways and the respondent for companystruction of two lane road over bridge in lieu of L xing near Muradnagar Railway Station at a companyt of Rs.4,21,69,176.25/ .
Upon companysideration of companytention of the parties, the learned Single Judge held that the question whether the discharge certificate and supplementary agreement were signed by the respondent under duress, would require evidence to be led and is therefore, required to be examined by the arbitrator.
District and Sessions Judge as the sole arbitrator instead of directing the appointment of arbitrator as per Clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract.
in companynection with Rewari Rohtak New Line to the respondent.
The respondent companytractor on 28.08.2014 also sent a No Claim letter to the Railway stating that it has numberclaim towards the Railways and requested for release of security deposit made by it.
The respondent vide letter dated 15.01.2014 raised two claims and requested for appointment of arbitrator.
The respondent vide its letter dated 05.05.2014 invoked arbitration clause as companytained under Clause 64 of General Conditions of Contract.
It was also provided in this supplementary agreement that the principal agreement shall stand finally discharged and the arbitration clause companytained therein shall cease to exist.
The respondent thereafter filed Arbitration Petition No.168 of 2015 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the High Court for appointment of an arbitrator.
The respondent thereafter filed Arbitration Petition No.531/2014 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator.
So far as the appointment of arbitrator is companycerned, the High Court held that since the Railways failed to appoint an arbitrator despite invocation of the arbitration clause by the respondent on 05.05.2014, the Railways forfeited its right under the arbitration clause and the learned Judge appointed Mr. Ram Prakash Retd. ,
civil engineering works such as companystruction of duty huts at L xings, water supply arrangements, provision of station name boards etc.
On the same day i.e. on 06.05.2014, parties also entered into a supplementary agreement which recorded full accord and satisfaction as on 06.05.2014.
No.00356/104/C TKJ dated 06.05.2014.
The appellant issued a reply dated 25.07.2014 rejecting the arbitration claim of the respondent, taking the stand that the respondent had signed the final bill and also signed the supplementary agreement which clearly stipulates that it was agreed between the parties that the respondent has accepted the said sums mentioned therein in full and final satisfaction of all dues and claims under the principal agreement.
The Railways informed the respondent that the claims of the respondent are number referable to arbitration as the same are companyered under excepted matter.
The work was finally companypleted on 31.03.2012.
The respondent averred that a sum of over Rs.1.50 crores still remains to be paid to the respondent and calling upon the appellant to make the payment within 90 days.
The total companyt of the work at accepted rate came to Rs.5,30,31,369.30.
In the meanwhile, on 05.05.2014, respondent sent a letter to the appellant alleging that under the companypulsion of circumstances, it had to sign the so called final bill without protest as desired by the administration, otherwise heavy financial loss would have been caused to respondent and it may number be in a position to tender and execute further works.
The work was companypleted on 03.08.2013.
BANUMATHI, J. These appeals arise out of the impugned judgments dated 15.05.2015 and 02.02.2015 passed by High Court of Delhi in Arbitration Petition No.168 of 2015 and Arbitration Petition No.531 of 2014 in and by which the High Court appointed an independent Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties, instead of MADHU BALA Date 2019.11.14 141016 IST Reason directing appointment of arbitrator as per Clause 64 of General Conditions of Contract GCC which stipulates that Railways Officers should be appointed as Arbitrator.
No.280 dated 29.01.2014 and also signed a supplementary agreement dated 01.03.2014 acknowledging full and final settlement of all claims.
