9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 972X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een the parties contained an arbitration clause therein. After the completion of work the final bill was drawn and was sent to the respondent and he agreed to accept the final bill and in fact did receive the money under the final bill without any objection. But thereafter, he wrote a letter to the concerned Chief Engineer, indicating several items of claim and additional works which the respondent had executed pursuant to the directions of the appropriate authority and the said work had not been included in the final bill. He, therefore, requested the Chief Engineer, the authority under Clause 25 of the agreement to appoint an arbitrator and pursuant to the said request, the Chief Engineer by his letter dated 25-11-93 did appoint an arbitr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispute to be referred to arbitration, invoking Clause 25 of the agreement and, therefore, the impugned award has to be set aside. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on two decisions of this Court -- P.K. Ramaiah and Co. v. Chairman Managing Director, National Thermal Power Corporation, 1994(1)SCALE1 as well as a three Judge Bench decision of this Court in Nathani Steels Ltd. v. Associated Constructions, . 4. Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, appearing for the respondent-claimant on the other hand contended that this objection had not specifically been taken in the objection, that was filed under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, and therefore, the Union Government should not be permitted to take up this plea in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppearing for the Union Government. It transpires from the award itself that only as against claim item No. 2, the Union of India had pleaded that the said claim cannot be entertained in view of the receipt of the final bill by the contractor without any protest, though the arbitrator had rejected the said plea of the Union of India. It is not doubt true as contended by Mr. Nageswara Rao that neither the judgment of the learned Single Judge nor the judgment of the Division Bench which is under challenge in this appeal before his Court did indicate the fact that the Union of India had raised this contention before the aforesaid two forums below but notwithstanding the same when the existence of an arbitrable dispute is the condition precedent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
