High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Chandi Constructor Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Haryana on 31 July, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chandi Constructor Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Haryana on 31 July, 2009
Arbitration Case No.269 of 2006                                           1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                                      Date of Decision : 31.07.2009


Chandi Constructor Pvt. Ltd.                             ....Petitioner
            versus
State of Haryana                                         .....Respondent


CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR.


Present : Mr.R.K.Shukla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
          Mr.Ashish Kapoor, Addl. A.G. Haryana, for the repsondent.

                         -.-


J.S.KHEHAR, J.

Through the instant petition, Chandi Constructor Private

Limited, Patiala, sought arbitration of a dispute with the respondent arising

out of a contractual agreement dated 8.6.1999. The arbitration clause

admittedly applicable to adjudicate the disputes in the contractual

relationship between the parties has been appended to the written statement

as Annexure R-1. The same is being extracted hereunder:

“24.1. If the contractor believes that a decision taken by the
Engineer was either outside the authority given to the
Engineer by the Contract or that the decision was wrongly
taken, the decision shall be referred to the Arbitrator within
28 days of the notification of the Engineer’s decision.”

Based on the aforestated arbitration clause, it is the sole

contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the claim raised

by the petitioner herein on 13.11.2001 was barred by time and could not be

entertained. In this connection, it is submitted that the period of limitation
Arbitration Case No.269 of 2006 2

would commence from the date of agreement dated 8.6.1999. In order to

demonstrate that the agreement was terminated on 27.9.2000, the learned

counsel for the respondent has invited this Court’s attention to the

communication addressed to the petitioner, a copy of which is appended as

Annexure R-9 with the written statement. A perusal of Annexure R-9

reveals that the contractual agreement between the parties was sought to be

terminated in terms of Clauses 59.2 (a) and 59.2 (e) of the conditions of the

contract. So as to determine whether or not the petitioner had been duly

intimated in terms of the arbitration clause extracted herein above, reference

should essentially be made to Clauses 59 & 60 of the conditions of the

contract. Having perused clauses 59 & 60 of the conditions of the contract,

it is apparent that the termination of the contract can be rendered on one of

the 8 eventualities depicted under Clause 59.2 whereupon payment has to be

made to the contractor under Clause 60.1. It is only when the aforesaid

consequences of determination are finalized, the contract would be deemed

to be terminated.

On the other hand, with regard to the the communication dated

27.9.2000 (Annexure R-9) referred to herein above, which expressly

indicates that the amount recoverable from the petitioner on termination of

the contract was being worked out and would be intimated to the petitioner

separately, learned counsel for the respondent has invited this Court’s

attention to a communication dated 24.8.2001 (Annexure R-12) informing

the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.40,459/-, and thereafter its reminder

dated 5.9.2001 (Annexure R-13). The aforesaid issues remained under the

consideration of the respondent till 13.11.2001. It is only thereafter that the
Arbitration Case No.269 of 2006 3

final decision must be taken by the respondents so as to enable the

petitioner to seek its remedy. It is only on 13.11.2001 that the petitioner

sought appointment of an arbitrator in terms of arbitration clause extracted

herein above. In view of the above, there is hardly any justification to

accept the contention of learned counsel for the respondent to the effect that

the request made by the petitioner for appointment of arbitrator was

delayed. In view thereof, the solitary contention raised by learned counsel

for the respondent not to appoint arbitrator is hereby declined.

Mr.O.P.Gupta, retired District and Sessions Judge from the

Superior Judicial Services of the State of Haryana, is hereby appointed as

Arbitrator. The Arbitrator shall determine his fee and other terms and

conditions keeping in mind the total liability involved in the controversy.

The petition stands disposed of.

31.07.2009                                                (J.S.KHEHAR)
  Mohinder                                                    JUDGE