SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.
M/S. GAYATRI PROJECT LTD. – Appellants
VERSUS
M/S. SAI KRISHNA CONSTRUCTION – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.1854 of 2007
Decided on : 28-11-2013
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11 - Payment of work – Contract - Appeal is filed against order passed by High Court in an application Section Arbitration and Conciliation Act (for short Act directing that matter be referred to arbitration by former Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court - Respondent moved aforesaid application on basis that it is partnership firm carrying on business of civil works relating to irrigation structures - Irrigation Department of Government Andhra Pradesh had given work to appellant herein – Held, This Court that question whether there has been full and final settlement of claim contract is itself dispute arising upon or in relation to or connection with contract and where there is an arbitration clause in contract, notwithstanding plea that there was full and final settlement between parties that dispute can be referred to arbitration - It was also observed that mere claim of accord and satisfaction may not put an end to arbitration clause - Significant that neither Steels disagreed with the decision in Valley Corporation but only distinguished it on ground that there was no full and final discharge voucher showing accord and satisfaction in that case - In our opinion since there is no acceptance of full and final settlement by Respondent which has been relied upon by appellant issue clearly had to be left to Arbitrator to be adjudicated - In view of above court find no merit in appeal and same is accordingly dismissed - Before court part with this matter court would request – Appeal dismissed
ORDER
1. This appeal is filed against the order passed by the High Court in an application under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the ‘Act’) directing that the matter be referred to arbitration by a former Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The respondent moved the aforesaid application on the basis that it is a partnership firm, carrying on business of civil works relating to irrigation structures. The Irrigation Department of Government of Andhra Pradesh had given the work to the appellant herein. Thus, the appellant was the main contractor and respondent was the sub-contractor working under the appellant.
2. The works involved earth work excavation and cohesive non-swelling soil filling in KC Canal including CC lining and structures form KMs 156.650 to KMs 170-00 of Package ICB-10’ in Kurnool District of Andhra Pradesh. The appellant identified the respondent as a suitable agency for execution of the work and entrusted the work to the respondent as a sub-contractor. After due negotiations, an agreement dated 29.1.2001 was entered into between the parties. The agreement inter alia provides various terms and conditions including the nature of work to be executed by the respondent, security deposits, penalties leviable, commission to which the appellant would be entitled to, method of payment for the work undertaken, taxes and Government levies. The agreement also contained an arbitration clause which reads as under:-
“All disputes relating to the original contract shall be properly referred and correspond by the work contractor. However, the settlement of disputes and consequential awards shall be to the account of principal contractor and work contractor. All disputes relating to the work contract under this agreement shall be mutually settled between the work contractor and the principal contractor. In case of any differences, the same will be decided by a sole arbitrator appointed by the principal contractor and work contractor.”
3. Clause 6 of the agreement provides that the measurements shall be taken for the work done once in a month. Payment shall be released as and when principal contractor received payment from the Department, duly deducting the commission and other recoveries as mentioned in Clause 6 above. Final payment shall be released after completion of the work satisfactorily. Clause 5 provided that the work contractor (sub-contractor) shall be paid the balance amount after deducting certain amounts from the gross amount of running account bills. Relevant part of clause 5 is as under:-
"The work contractor shall be paid the balance amount after deducting the following from the gross amount of running account bills.
(i) a. Earth work excavation in bed and slopes including sectioning and leveling @ 14% (Fourteen percent only) of Agreement rate.
b. Filling bed and slopes with CNS soils as directed and as per specifications @ 17% (Seventeen percent only) of Agreement rates.
(ii) Sales Tax/Turnover Tax
(iii) Income Tax in the running account bills.
(iv) Value of materials etc., if any, supplied by the department or by the principal contractor and hire charges of machinery given.
(v) Any other recoveries affected by the department in the account bills.
4. The agreement further provided that the final payment shall be released after completion of the work satisfactorily.
5. The respondent claims that it has executed the work to the satisfaction of the appellant and the State Government. The appellant having received all the amounts from the Government of Andhra Pradesh failed to make corresponding payments to the respondent after deducting commission as stipulated under the agreement. The respondent, therefore, approached and tried to persuade the appellant to make the payment of the outstanding amount after the completion of the entire work. However, the appellant failed to pay. Since the amounts were not paid by the appellant, the respondent served a Claim Notice on
SupremeToday
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.