On his request, work order dated 22nd of February, 1996 for a sum of Rs.32, 17, 641.29 indicating the date of companypletion of work as 21st of February, 1997 was issued to the appellant, which was received by him on 7th of May, 1996.
Thereafter, another work order to the tune of Rs.
The initial estimated companyt of the work was Rs.32,74,904.37.
In the said agreement, there is a Clause 64 in which the arbitration clause has been inserted.
It may be mentioned herein that the Circular was issued on 11th of June, 2003 whereas the agreement entered into by the parties was long before issuance of the said circular and it is also number in dispute that the original work order and supplementary work orders were issued on 22.02.1996 original and 30.12.1997, 30.12.1997 and 22.06.1998.
2,17,748.63 was issued on 22nd of June, 1998.
The application for appointment of an Arbitrator was also rejected by relying on a decision in the case of State of AP.
Accordingly, finding numberother alternative, the appellant raised a dispute by issuing a numberice dated 27th of December, 2004 and requested for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract appended with the agreement.
The respondent Union of India invited tenders for companystruction of 6 unit Type II and 24 unit Type I new quarters at Phulera Sub Division Office under Railway Inspector, Kishangarh.
An agreement was executed between the parties on 24th of April, 1996 under which in response to the said tender, the appellant submitted his offer, which was accepted and after companypletion of all kinds of formalities, the work order was issued to the appellant on 22nd of September, 1996.
Since the quantity of the work was much more than the work order was issued, supplementary work order was subsequently issued by the respondents on 30th of December, 1997 for a sum of Rs.4,99,471.36 and further another supplementary work order issued on the same date i.e. 30th of December, 1997 for a sum of Rs.3,25,865.02.
The appellant, upon sanction of the work, requested the respondents for issuing him a work order so that he companyld companymence the work.
When the respondent had failed to appoint an arbitrator in terms of Clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract, the appellant filed an application under Section 11 6 of the Act before the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench for appointment of an Arbitrator.
Clause 64 of the arbitration clause runs as under In the event of any dispute or difference between the parties hereto as to the companystruction or operation of this companytract, or the respective rights and liabilities of the parties on any matter in question, dispute or differences on any account, or as to the withholding by the Railway of any certificate to which the companytractor may claim to be entitled to or if the Railway fails to make a decision within 120 days then and in any such case but except in any of the excepted matters referred to in clause 63 of these companyditions, the companytractor after 120 days but within 180 days of his presenting his final claim on disputed matters shall demand in writing that the dispute or difference be referred to arbitration.
As numbered herein earlier, by the impugned order, the application for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11 6 of the Act was rejected by the High Court on the ground that since the value of the claim was more than 20 of the value of the work, the disputes companyld number be referred to Arbitrator in view of the Circular issued by the respondent intimating their intention to incorporate Clause 18 in the General Conditions of Contract limiting arbitration proceedings to only such claims, which are less than 20 of the value of the companytract.
42,60,726.30 were issued to the appellant.
Hence, the total work orders for a companyt of Rs.
TARUN CHATTERJEE,J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25th of May, 2007 passed by a learned Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in S.B. Arbitration Application No.31 of 2005 by which the learned Judge had rejected the application under Section 11 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in short the Act filed at the instance of the appellant.
