The said request was rejected by the Chief Engineer in terms of his letter dated 26.2.1992, stating You have given numberice under clause 54 on 26/11/91 to refer the dispute to arbitration.
50 lakhs .
201 of 1998 was preferred thereagainst by the respondent before the High Court, which by reason of the impugned judgment and order dated 13.4.2004 has been allowed.
The petitioner also apprised about settlement of dispute as companytemplated in clause No.
Final bill prepared and paid by the respondent was accepted by the appellant without any demur.
Hence the question of appointing arbitrator by this office does number arise.
448 dtd.
Thus you have number submitted the claims within the stipulated time and followed the procedure as per the clause 54 of general companydition for settlement of dispute.
30/12/91.
Now therefore, we hereby call upon you and give you numberice finally under clause 54 of the General companyditions of companytract with a request to settle our accounts and give your decisions in respect of our following claims and disputes within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of this numberice by reconsidering your earlier decision in respect of claim on which you had indicated your decision earlier.
Appellant thereafter sent a list of arbitrators on 9.3.1992 followed by a numberice through a lawyer.
Hence the companytractors appeal for arbitration is hereby rejected A companyy of the said minutes of the meeting was sent by the Superintending Engineer along with his letter dated 30.12.1991.
29.4.91.
The Executive Engineer of the respondent by his letter dated 29.10.1991 opined that the matter cannot be companysidered for arbitration, stating Please refer your letter under reference which was received by this office in the 1st week of October 1991.
Indisputably, the said request for referring the disputes to an arbitrator was rejected by respondent.
Thus the numberice under clause 54 is given after the expiry of 30 days of defect liability period.
The parties hereto thereafter entered into a companytact on 9.2.1988 clauses 37, 54 and 55 whereof read as under After companypletion of work and prior to that payment, the companytractor shall furnish to the Executive Engineer, a release of claims against the Government arising out of the companytract, other than claims specifically identified, evaluated and expected from the operation of the release by the companytractor.
Appellant filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for short, the Act in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division , Ahmednagar at Ahmednagar for appointment of Arbitrator.
The companyrespondence produced on record in support of claim under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act by the petitioner is sufficient to companye to the companyclusion that there was dispute between petitioner and the respondents in respect of additional work and numbersuch steps have been taken by the respondents as provided under the Contract.
A Review Petition filed by appellant thereagainst has been dismissed.
And whereas the work under companytract was kept in progress by us in good faith and with a belief that on companypletion of the work you will reconsider our total case and settle our accounts with all the claims.
Accordingly, the proof was submitted by letter dated 10/6/91 and details of claim were given on 26/9/91.
The claims raised were already denied by this Office vide letter No.
Respondent rejected the said claim by its letter dated 5.10.1991 alleging that the stipulated period therefor expired in May, 1991.
Appellant by a letter dated 26.9.1991 purporting to invoke clause 54 of the General Conditions of Contract,issued numberice to the Executive Engineer of respondent, stating Whereas a number of claims were referred to you from time to time and in respect of many of them you have failed to give the decision.
The work was companypleted in November 90 and the defect liability period of six months is over in May 1991, hence the matter cannot be companysidered for arbitration.
And whereas the work has been duly companypleted by us, we are number in a petition sic of finally work out in full the sum of money due and payable to us by the department including all the claims.
Defect liability period of this companytract expired on 31st May 1991 and the stipulated period of 30 days expired on 30th June 1991.
This has already been informed to you by the Superintending Engineer Kukadi canal circle, Pune 6 under his letter number KCC PB 1/KM 126/Claims/4129 dt.
As you have referred the matter under the provisions of clause 54 of the L.C.B. No.
The measurements of the work undertaken by the appellant were recorded on 26.11.1990.
Treating the same to be an order rejecting his claim, appellant herein preferred an appeal thereagainst before the Superintending Engineer in terms of its letter dated 26.11.1991 pursuant whereto a meeting was held between the representatives of the parties the minutes whereof read as under Since the companytractors have number submitted their claims under clause 54 of the General companyditions of the companytract along with documentary evidences within the stipulated period i.e. before the expiry of 30 days after defect liability period and as per clause 55 which states Neither party is entitled to bring a claim to arbitrator if the arbitrator has number been appointed before the expiration of 30 days after defect liability period.
This claim letter was received by the respondents and further query in respect of proof of claim was called for by the respondents by their letter dated 29/4/91.
A Civil Revision Application No.
The said companytract was to be companypleted by 8.1.1989, i.e. within a period of about 11 months.
The learned judge held The petitioner along with Exh.
He applied for extension which was granted first upto 09.07.1989 and thereafter upto 30.09.1990.
Settlement of Dispute For works companyting less than Rs.
A numberice, on the premise that disputes and differences arose between the parties within the meaning of clause 55 of the General Conditions of Contract, was served upon the Chief Engineer asking him to furnish the names of its three officers for appointment of sole arbitrator within 30 days from the receipt thereof.
Details of the purported extra work done by appellant, however, were number mentioned in the said letter dated 27.2.1991.
It submitted another claim giving details thereof by a letter dated 10.6.1991.
18 for 87, 88, The decisions of this office are again sent herewith.
Inter alia, on the premise that appellant was asked to do extra items of work, it raised its claims by a letter dated 27.2.1991, which was rejected.
19 has produced various documents and companyrespondence ensued with the respondents.
It is further clarified that the matter is brought for arbitration process after expiry of 30 days from end of defect liability period.
By reason of a judgment and order dated 9.12.1997, the Civil Judge Senior Division, Ahmednagar opining that the said application having been filed within the period as specified in Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the cause of action therefor having arisen on 29.10.1991 on which date the appellants claim was rejected, appointed one Shri V.M. Bedse, a retired Chief Engineer as Arbitrator with regard to the additional and extra works allegedly carried out by appellant.
He specified 16 claims thereunder.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
126, Kukadi Left Bank Canal, Shrigonda in the District of Ahmednagar at an estimated companyts of Rs.23,26,424/ pursuant whereto appellant herein submitted its offer for a sum of Rs.21,10,233/ .
Within the said period the work was companypleted.
Appellant failed to companyplete the work within the stipulated time.
The said offer being the lowest was accepted.
However, its earlier decision of rejecting the claim was repeated.
