Municipal Council vs The Pooja Cooperative Society Ltd on 30 July, 2009

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH



                                       F.A.O. No. 3775 of 2009
                                       Date of decision : 30-07-2009



Municipal Council, Rohtak

                                                  ........Appellant


The Pooja Cooperative Society Ltd.

                                                  ........Respondents



CORAM :     HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR


PRESENT: Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate
         for the appellant.


NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL)

Learned counsel for the appellant states that the District

Judge, Rohtak could not have passed the order, directing the Municipal

Council to dispose of the final bills submitted by the applicant within a

period of three months and also could not further order that if any question

or objection whatsoever arises in any way, the dispute should be referred

to the Arbitration in terms of clause 24 of the agreement entered into

between the parties.

Learned counsel for the appellant further states that he is

aggrieved with this order as it is a direction to pay the final bills and the

same should be clarified. However, on a specific query by the Court that if

any amount is pending, learned counsel for the appellant replied in the

affirmative but submitted that amount is also due from the respondents and

that penalty too has to be recovered from the respondents.

Learned counsel for the appellant further states that the
F.A.O. No. 3775 of 2009 -2-

appellant had asked the contractor to produce the bills so that the same

could be audited and the amount could be released but he did not deposit

the said bills.

In view of the facts as narrated, word by word, by learned

counsel for the appellant, it is obvious that the final bills of the respondent

Contractor have yet to be cleared as the same were not cleared because

the Contractor did not deposit the said bills. It also appears that the

appellant is claiming some amount as due towards the Contractor. This

shows that there is a dispute.

It is also not denied that there is an agreement between the

parties with clause 24 which permits appointment of an Arbitrator in case of

dispute.

In view of this, I do not find anything illegal or wrong in the

order, having been passed by the District Judge, Rohtak to the effect that

pending amount be cleared and if there is any question or objection, the

matter be referred to the Arbitrator.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

(NIRMALJIT KAUR)
JUDGE
July 30, 2009
gurpreet