21 Sector 5, Dwarka New Delhi.
After the respondent filed its statement of claim, the appellant filed its reply and also its companynter claim dated 30.08.2003.
It was filed on 22.05.2005.
The appellant participated in the arbitration proceedings before the arbitrator appointed by the respondent.
The appellant, an unregistered partnership firm submitted its bid in response to the said tender on 06.05.1998.
The appellant was the successful bidder and the companytract was awarded to the appellant at an estimated companyt of Rs.9.80 crores.
It is stated that there was some delay in getting the plan sanctioned, which according to the appellant, he was number responsible for the delay.
By the impugned order dated 20.11.2007 the Division Bench having allowed the FAO OS No.376 of 2005, the appellant is before us.
1,36,24,886.08 along with interest at the rate of 12 from 01.06.2002 till the date of the award and further interest from the date of award till its payment at the rate of 18 per annum.
The respondent challenged the award dated 05.05.2005 under Section 34 of the 1996 Act before the Delhi High Court which was registered as A.A. No.188 of 2005.
As against the orders dated 01.09.2005 and 03.10.2005, the respondent preferred appeals in FAO OS No.376 of 2005 on 14.11.2005.
As the appointment came to be made on 17.03.2003 by the respondent, though, the appellant earlier moved the High Court by way of an Arbitration Application No.145 of 2003 on 09.07.2003 under Section 11 5 of the 1996 Act for appointment of an independent arbitrator, the same was subsequently withdrawn.
The said application was filed on 02.08.2005.
Pending disposal of the appeals, an interim order was passed on 21.07.2006 directing the respondent to deposit 50 of the decretal amount within six weeks and by subsequent order dated 18.08.2006 the time was extended by another four weeks.
The agreement for the companystruction of 102 dwelling units with basement was entered into between the appellant and the respondent on 02.02.1999.
While resisting the claim of the appellant, the respondent did number specifically raise any plea under Section 69 of the Partnership Act.
The tenders were invited in May 1998.
With reference to the dispute which arose as between the appellant and the respondent an arbitrator an advocate by name Smt.
The appellant filed another application under Section 9 of the 1996 Act to restrain the respondent from operating its bank accounts and from dispossessing the appellant on 29.01.2003.
The facts are number in companytroversy which can be briefly stated as under The respondent which is a Cooperative Group Housing Society invited tenders for companystruction of 102 dwelling units with basement at Plot No.
A dispute arose as between the appellant and the respondent which necessitated the appellant to move the High Court of Delhi by way of an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 for short 1996 Act to restrain the respondent from dispossessing the appellant from the worksite till the work executed by the appellant is measured by the Commissioner to be appointed by the Court.
The appellant was issued a letter of intent.
A Commissioner was also appointed by the High Court.
On 09.08.1998 the appellant submitted its first bill for the companystruction of the companypound wall etc.
Claims and companynter claims were made by the appellant as well as the respondent before the arbitrator.
The arbitrator passed the award on 05.05.2005 wherein the claim of the appellant was allowed to the extent of Rs.
Sangeeta Tomar was appointed by the respondent to adjudicate the dispute between them.
The respondent filed Review Application No.26 of 2005 which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge by an order dated 03.10.2005.
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. An interesting but very important legal question arises for companysideration in this appeal relating to interpretation of Section 69 3 of the Indian Partnership Act with reference to its applicability to Arbitral proceedings.
The respondents application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by an order dated 01.09.2005.
