Supreme Court Of India
GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAYS
Versus
Sarvesh Chopra
Decided on : March 1, 2002
Arbitration Agreement - Interpretation of Excepted Matters - Clauses 9.2, 11.3, 21.5, 63 of General Conditions and Special Conditions - Claims 3 to 6 referred to Arbitrator - Court's Analysis and Conclusion
Fact of the Case:
The respondent sought arbitration for six claims under the Arbitration Act, 1940, arising from a construction contract with the appellants. The single Judge directed two claims to arbitration, while the Division Bench directed all six claims to be referred to the arbitrator. The appellants sought special leave to appeal against the Division Bench's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The Court analyzed the interpretation of excepted matters under Clause 63 of the General Conditions and Special Conditions of the contract. It concluded that claims covered by clauses 9.2, 11.3, and 21.5 of the Special Conditions were not arbitrable, while claims requiring determination by a railway authority fell under excepted matters.
Issues: The core issue was the interpretation of Clause 63 of the General Conditions and Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, to determine the arbitrability of the six claims raised by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that claims covered by specific clauses in the Special Conditions, which provided for no liability or entertainment of claims, were not arbitrable. Claims requiring determination by a railway authority were considered excepted matters and not arbitrable.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench's decision, and restored the single Judge's decision, directing that the four claims be excluded from arbitration.
Judgment
R. C. LAHOTI, J.
( 1 ) THE respondent was granted by the appellants work of construction on bored piles 500 mm dia by cast in Situ method for widening and raising of Pul Mithai (S ). A contract was entered into between the parties on 27-4-1985. The contract is subject to the General conditions of the contract of Railways read with Special Conditions. Disputes arose between the parties and the respondent moved a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 praying for the arbitration agreement being filed in the Court and six claims set out in the petition being referred to the Arbitrator for settlement. The learned single Judge of the High Court of Delhi (Original Side) directed two claims to be referred but as to claims numbers 3 to 6 formed an opinion that the claims being excepted matters within the meaning of Clause 63 of General Conditions of Contract were not liable to be referred to arbitration. An intra Court Appeal preferred by respondent has been allowed and the four claims have also been directed to be referred by the Division Bench to arbitrator on forming an opinion that they were not covered by excepted matters. The appellants have filed this petition seeking special leave to appeal against the decision of Division Bench.
( 2 ) LEAVE granted.
( 3 ) CLAUSE 63 of the General Conditions of the Contract provides as under :-"matters finally determined by the Railway - All disputes and differences of any kind whatsoever arising out of or in connection with the contract, whether during the progress of the work or after its completion and whether before or after the determination of the contract, shall be referred by the contractor to the Railway and the Railway shall within a reasonable time after receipt of the Contractors representation make and notify decisions on all matters referred to by the contractor in writing provided that matters for which provision has been made in clauses 18, 22 (5), 39, 45 (a), 55, 55-A (5), 61 (2) and 62 (1) (XII) (B) (e) (b) of the General Conditions of Contract or in any clause of the special conditions of the contract shall be deemed as excepted matters and decisions thereon shall be final and binding on the contractor provided further that excepted matters shall stand specifically excluded from the purview of the arbitration clause and not be referred to arbitration. "
( 4 ) CLAUSES 9. 2, 11. 3 and 21. 5 of Special Conditions of Contract are as under :-"9. 2. No material price variation or wages escalation on any account whatsoever and compensation for "force Majeure" etc. shall be payable under this contract. 11. 3. No claim whatever will be entertained by the Railway on a/c of any delay or hold up of the works arising out of delay in suply of drawings, changes, modifications, alterations, additions, omissions, omissions in the site layout plans or detailed drawings or designs and or late supply of such materials as are required to be arrnaged by the Railway or due to any other factor on Railway Accounts. 21. 5. No claim for idle labour and/or idle machinery etc. on any account will be entertained. Similarly no claim shall be entertained for business loss or any such loss. "
( 5 ) CLAIMS numbers 3 to 6 whereon reference is sought for by the respondent to the Arbitrator are as under :-3. There occurred tremendous increase in cost of building materials. 52 Nos. of piles were bored after the expiry of stipulated completion period and particularly when the prices were too high. Additional cost incurred @ Rs. 250. 00 for these 42 Nos. of piles may please be paid. This has also been verified by your staff at site, Rs. 250 x 42 Rs. 10500/ -. 4. Piling rig with diesel driven wench, mixture, machine, driving pipe, wheel barrows, hoppers and other tools and plants remained idle at site for 24 months, i. e. for 75 days. The entire machinery was procured from the market on hire charges. Rent was paid @ Rs. 1070. 00 per day for this machinery. Hire charges amounting to Rs. 80,250.
Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. J.C. Budharaja, Government and Mining Contractor
State of A. P. v. M/s. Associated Engineering Enterprises, Hyderabad
Alopi Parshad v. Union of India
Food Corporation of India v. Sreekanth Transport
Union of India v. Popular Builders, Calcutta
Continental Construction Co, Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Referred : Vishwanath Sood v. Union of India and Anr.
Prabartak Commercial Corporation Ltd. v. The Chief Administrator Oandakaranya Project and Anr.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.