SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(SC) 755

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TARUN CHATTERJEE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU
Union of India & Others
Versus
M/s. Onkar Nath Bhalla & Sons
Civil Appeal No.2622 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 7221 of 2008)
Decided on : 17-04-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
If there is no live dispute between the parties, no arbitrator can be appointed.

Headnote:Government contract – General conditions of contract IAFW-2249 – Condition 65 – Respondent submitting final bill and receiving payment without any protest – No further claim admissible. (Para 8)

       Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11 – Condition 70 of the contract – Sole arbitration by a serving officer having degree in Engineering or equivalent – Appointment of arbitrator – Ingredients – Live dispute, and – Appointment of arbitrator as per terms and conditions of the agreement and need of the dispute – No live dispute between the parties arbitrator – High Court erred in appointing arbitrator. (Para 8, 9, 10, 11)

       (1994) 3 SCC 126; (2005) 8 SCC 618 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant, Engineer-in-Chief, had entered into a contract agreement with respondent/contractor. The contract was completed on 20.9.2002. A final bill was prepared, settling all claims, by the respondent and was forwarded to the appellants. Respondent after receiving payment of final bill signed the same, without any protest or reservation on 27.3.2001.

       Again after two years, respondent submitted a list of 20 claims to the appellants. Appellants in their reply stated that no further claim shall be made by the contractor after submission of final bill and the claim now submitted are deemed to have been waived and extinguished.

       Respondent then approached E-in-C for appointment of arbitrator on 17.8.2003. Appellants did not appoint an Arbitrator as no dispute existed.

       High Court allowing the application of the respondent, stated, that, as per the arbitration clause, as no affidavit has been filed within the stipulated period of the notice invoking the arbitration clause, the appellants have forfeited their right to appoint the Arbitrator.

       Finding of the Court:

       High Court erred in appointing a sole arbitrator.

       Result;

       Appeal allowed.

Judgment :-

H.L. Dattu, J.

Leave granted.

2) This appeal is directed against the judgment and the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in A.A. No. 193/2006 dated 26.4.2007. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has appointed Justice G. C. Mittal (retired Chief Justice) as the sole Arbitrator.

3) The facts in brief are: - the appellant, Engineer-in-Chief, had entered into a contract agreement with respondent/contractor. The contract was completed on 20.9.2002. A final bill was prepared, settling all claims, by the respondent and was forwarded to the appellants. Respondent after receiving payment of final bill signed the same, without any protest or reservation on 27.3.2001. Again after two years, respondent submitted a list of 20 claims to the appellants. Appellants in their reply stated that as per condition 65 of IAFW 2249 (General Conditions of Contracts) forming part of CA, no further claim shall be made by the contractor after submission of final bill and the claim now submitted are deemed to have been waived and extinguished. Respondent then approached E-in-C for appointment of arbitrator on 17.8.2003. Appellants did not appoint an Arbitrator as no dispute existed. Respondent went before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Amritsar on 19.9.2003. Civil Judge transferred the same to the Distt. Judge, which was further transferred to Punjab & Haryana High Court.

4) High Court allowing the application of the respondent, stated, that, as per the arbitration clause, as no affidavit has been filed with in the stipulated period of the notice invoking the arbitration clause, the appellants have forfeited their right to appoint the Arbitrator. Aggrieved by the said order, appellants are before us by this special leave petition.

5) The Learned counsel for the appellants would contend, that, the final bill of the work was signed by the applicant on 21.12.2000 and the payment for the same was made to the applicant on 27.3.2001. The applicant signed the final bill and no further claim certificate was also signed without any reservation and also got the payment of final bill by signing the same without any protest. It is further contended that when the agreement provided for arbitration by serving officer having degree in Engineering or equivalent, then a Retired High Court Judge cannot be appointed as an Arbitrator. To support his contentions he would rely on the decision of this court in P. K. Ramaiah & Co. v. N.T.P.C., 1994 (3) SCC 126, wherein this Court has held that:

".........Admittedly the full and final satisfaction was acknowledged by a receipt in writing and the amount was received unconditionally. Thus there is accord and satisfaction by final settlement of the claims. The subsequent allegation of coercion is an afterthought and a devise to get over the settlement of the dispute, acceptance of the payment and receipt voluntarily given. In Russell on Arbitration, 19th Edn., p. 396 it is stated that "an accord and satisfaction may be pleaded in an action on award and will constitute a good defence.

Accordingly, we hold that the appellant having acknowledged the settlement and also accepted measurements and having received the amount in full and final settlement of the claim, there is accord and satisfaction."

6) Learned Counsel would also invite our attention to the case of SBP & Co. v. Patel Engg. Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 618, wherein this Court has observed that:

a) The function performed by the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Chief Justice of India under sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act (i.e. the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996) is administrative, pure and simple, and neither judicial nor quasi- judicial.

b) The function to be performed by the Chief Justice under sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act may be performed by him or by "any person or institution designated by him".

c) While performing the function under sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act, the Chief Justice shoul








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top