9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 943X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are that the parties entered into a contract by which the appellant was awarded earthwork in filling and cutting in embankment, strengthening, extension of bridges etc. vide award letter dated 21.11.1995. Subsequently Agreement No. 74-W/Acceptance/ DLI-RE/IInd Line /8/WA dated 12.1.1996 was executed between the parties which was to be governed by the General Conditions of the Contract, inter alia providing settlement of disputes by way of arbitration Under Clause 64 of General Conditions of Contract. Certain differences arose between the parties. It is alleged that contract was illegally terminated on 16.11.1996. The appellant vide letter dated 22.12.1996 invoked provisions of clause 64 and raised five claims for reference to arbitrators a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date of filing of the petition. The learned Single Judge also noticed that the petition is otherwise liable to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches. 4. Out of the five claims, claims 1&2 are in respect of payment for items/works already measured/executed but not paid. Claim 3 was in respect of payment for material lying at the site. These claims were referred for the arbitration. The dispute was regarding last two claims i.e. claim 4 and 5 which were in respect of payment of business loss due to alleged failure of department in not considering petitioner's representation and for damages for loss of reputation and illegal termination of the contract by the respondent. The learned Single Judge held that claims no. 4 and 5 were bey ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for works already executed, But not measured Rs. 50,000/- CLAIM NO. 3 Payment for material lying at site Rs. 50,000/- CLAIM NO. 4 Payment for business loss due to the Failure of the Department, in not Considering our representation, made During the currency of contract And arbitrarily terminating the contract Rs. 7,00,000/- CLAIM NO. 5 Damages for loss of our reputation On account of illegal termination Of our contract by the Department Rs. 10,00,000/-" 7. The contention of the appellant that appointment of Presiding Co- Arbitrator is not in conformity with the terms of the arbitration agreement is belied by the letter of the appellant dated 14/20.12.2000 addressed to the respondent, wherein it is acknowledged that the Presiding A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
