JUDGMENT
Jaspal Singh, J.
(1) The petition is under section 8 and. 20 of the Arbitration Act. As far as section 8 is concerned I need not detain myself for long as the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not seeking any relief under said provision.
(2) It is not disputed that the petitioner had entered into a contract with respondent No.1 for the work of internal electrification of a school at Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi. The dates of commencement of the work was April 20, 1982. It was stipulated that the work would be completed within one month. The petitioner claims that the work was executed and on preparation of the final bill on October 28, 1987 payment was received under protest as it had allegedly not incorporated the entire amount due. This led to disputes and differences.
(3) The respondent on the other hand claims that complete payment already stands made and consequently there are no disputes and differences between the parties requiring reference to arbitration. It is further claimed that the petition is not within time as the petitioner did not make .any demand for arbitration in respect of its claim in writing within 90 days of receiving the intimation that the final bill was ready for payment.
(4) The pleadings of the parties led to the framing of the following issues :. “1. Whether the petition was not competent? 2. Whether disputes mentioned in the petition were not referable under the arbitration act ? 3. Whether the petitioner had filed a claim after the receipt of the final bill within stipulated time ? It not, its effect ? Whether the petition is barred by time ? 5. Relief. Issues No. 1 & 2
(5) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that since the petitioner had received payment of the final bill, therefore, no disputes remains and that consequently the petition is not competent. On the other hand it is the case of the petitioner that the payment against the alleged final bill was received under protest as it did not relate to full amount due to it and that the question as to whether the claim had been fully satisfied or not is itself a dispute within the ambit and scope of the arbitration agreement and for that reason too the petition is maintainable. I do tend to agree with the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that it has not been paid the total amount due to it and that the payment against the final bill was accepted by it under protest. This itself raises a disputes and since admittedly there is an arbitration agreement between the parties I feel that the disputes so raised fall within the ambit and scope of the said arbitration agreement Issue No. 1 and 2 are decided accordingly. Issue No. 3 & 4
(6) On issues No.3 and 4 it has been argued on behalf of the respondents that since, the petitioner did not make any demand for arbitration in respect of any claim in writing within 90 days of receipt of intimation from the respondent that the bill was ready for payment, the petitioner must be deemed to have waived its claim and that as per the agreement entered into between the parties the said claim would be barred and that New Delhi Municipal Corporation must consequently be taken to have been discharged and released of all liabilities under the contract in respect of the said claim. In support my attention has been drawn to a part of clause 25 of the agreement which runs as follow: “IT is also a term of the contract that if the contractor does not make any demand for arbitration in respect of any claim(s) in writing within 90 days of receiving the intimation from the Ndmc that the bill is ready for payment the claim of the contractor will be deemed to have been waived and absolutely barred and the Ndmc shall be discharged and released of all liabilities under the contract in respect of these, claims.
(7) The perusal of the affidavit filed by the respondent by way of evidence would go to show that it no where mentions the date when the petitioner had allegedly received the intimation from it to the effect that the bill was ready for payment. On the other hand the petitioner in its affidavit has clearly mentioned that intimation was received on 2nd November, 1987. The demand for arbitration was made on 14th January, 1988. as it borne out from the affidavit of the petitioner. Thus it cannot be said that the demand for arbitration was not made within 90 days of the receipt of the intimation in question from the New Delhi Municipal Corporation. Consequently both the issues are decided in favor of the petitioner and against the respondents. ‘ Relief,
(8) In view of my finding on Issues No. 1 to 41 allow the petition under section 20 of the Arbitration Act. The Administrator, New Delhi Municipal Corporation is directed to appoint an arbitrator and to refer the disputes and differences between the parties to the said arbitrator within one month from today. No order is made as to costs.