2011 (3) Supreme 441
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Aftab Alam and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. — Appellants
versus
M/s. Master Construction Co. — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3541 of 2011
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8162 of 2007)
Decided on : 25-4-2011
(2009) 1 SCC 267; AIR (1959) SC 1362; AIR (1968) SC 522; (1974) 1 SCC 141; (1982) 1 SCC 625; (1988) 3 SCC 76; 1994 Supp (3) SCC 83; 1994 Supp (3) SCC 126; 1995 Supp (3) SCC 324; (1996) 1 SCC 54; (1999) 6 SCC 400; (2000) 10 SCC 178; (2005) 8 SCC 618; (2006) 8 SCC 156; (2008) 5 SCC 400 – Relied upon
(2004) 2 SCC 663; (2006) 13 SCC 475 – Referred
(b) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) – Allegation of coercion regarding no-claim certificate raised after release of bank guarantee and one month after payment of final bill – No financial duress or coercion made out prima facie – Bald assertion of coercion without anything more does not lead to an arbitrable dispute. (Para 29)
Facts of the case:
1. The respondent – M/s. Master Construction Company – was awarded a contract by the first appellant – Union of India – for the work, ‘provisions of OTM accommodation and certain essential technical buildings’ to be erected and installed at Bhatinda.
2. On furnishing the no-claim certificates by the contractor, the payment of final bill was released to the contractor and the bank guarantee amounting to Rs. 21,00,000/- was also released.
3. Immediately after release of the bank guarantee, the contractor wrote to the appellants withdrawing ‘no-claim certificates’; it also lodged certain claims.
4. The Chief Engineer, Bhatinda Zone, Bhatinda vide his letter dated July 13, 2000 declined to entertain the claims of the contractor on the ground that the final bill has been accepted by the contractor after furnishing the ‘no-claim certificates’ and no claim under the contract remained.
5. The contractor requested the Engineer-in-Chief, Army Headquarters, Kashmir House, New Delhi to refer the disputes between the parties for resolution to the arbitrator.
6. Ultimately the High Court appointed an arbitrator.
Finding of the case:
The impugned judgment is not sustainable.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
R.M. Lodha, J. —
Leave granted.
2. This appeal, by special leave, arises from the order dated December 8, 2006 passed by the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘1996 Act’) whereby he held that all disputes between the parties to the contract have to be referred to the arbitration and appointed Mr. M.S. Liberahan, retired Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court, as sole arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties.
3. The respondent — M/s. Master Construction Company (for short, ‘the contractor’) — was awarded a contract (CA No. CEBTZ—14/95-96) on September 17, 1995 by the first appellant—Union of India — for the work, ‘provisions of OTM accommodation and certain essential technical buildings’ to be erected and installed at Bhatinda. The first phase of the work was to be completed by July 20, 1996 and the second phase by January 20, 1997.
4. The agreement between the parties made IAFW—2249 an integral part of the contract. Condition 70 thereof provided mode for resolution of disputes and differences between the parties through arbitration.
5. The work is said to have been completed by the contractor, albeit belatedly, on August 31, 1998. The completion certificate was issued on September 9, 1999.
6. The contractor furnished no-claim certificates on April 3, 2000, April 28, 2000 and May 4, 2000 and the final bill was signed on May 4, 2000.
7. The payment of final bill was released to the contractor on June 19, 2000. Thereafter, the bank guarantee amounting to Rs. 21,00,000/- was also released on July 12, 2000. Immediately after release of the bank guarantee, on that very day, i.e. July 12, 2000, the contractor wrote to the appellants withdrawing ‘no-claim certificates’; it also lodged certain claims.
8. The Chief Engineer, Bhatinda Zone, Bhatinda (Appellant No. 3 herein) vide his letter dated July 13, 2000 declined to entertain the claims of the contractor on the ground that the final bill has been accepted by the contractor after furnishing the ‘no-claim certificates’ and no claim under the contract remained.
9. The contractor vide its letter dated September 10, 2000 requested the Engineer-in-Chief, Army Headquarters, Kashmir House, New Delhi (Appellant No. 2 herein) to refer the disputes between the parties for resolution to the arbitrator. The contractor stated in that letter that if the arbitrator was not appointed within 30 days from the date of request, it may be constrained to seek the remedy as may be available under the law.
10. As no arbitrator was appointed by the appellants despite the request made in the letter dated September 10, 2000, the contractor made an application under Section 11 of the 1996 Act before the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Bhatinda on January 10, 2001. The application, after contest, was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhatinda on January 6, 2003.
11. Being not satisfied with the order dated January 6, 2003, the contractor challenged that order by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
12. The Division Bench of the High Court heard the parties and by its order dated May 20, 2004 dismissed the contractor’s writ petition.
13. The contractor challenged the High Court’s order by filing a special leave petition before this Court. This Court disposed of the special leave petition on January 3, 2006 by directing that the application filed by the contractor under Section 11 of the 1996 Act shall be placed before the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, for appropriate order thereon. This Court, consequently, set aside the orders of the High Court and the lower court.
14. It was then that the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court decided the application filed by the contractor under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act and passed the order impugned in the present appeal.
15. Mr. Brijender Chahar, learned
State of Maharashtra v. Nav Bharat Builders
M/s. P.K. Ramaiah & Company v. Chairman & Managing Director, National Thermal Power Corpn.
Nathani Steels Ltd. v. Associated Constructions
Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Indo Swiss Synthetics Gem Mfg. Co. Ltd.
United India Insurance v. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills
Chairman & M.D., NTPC Ltd. v. Reshmi Constructions, Builders and Contractors
The Union of India v. Kishorilal Gupta & Bros
The Naihati Jute Mills Ltd. v. Khyaliram Jagannath
Damodar Valley Corporation v. K.K. Kar
Union of India v. M/s. L.K. Ahuja & Co.
SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd.
M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Ranipur v. M/s. Amar Nath Bhan Prakash
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.