SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, A.S. BOPANNA, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
Pradeep Vinod Construction Company – Respondent
Civil Appeal No.6400 of 2016
With
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
M/S. BM Construction Company – Respondent
Civil Appeal No.6420 of 2016
Decided on : 14-11-2019
(a) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 21 - Request for arbitration made much prior to Amendment 2015 - Amendment will not apply unless the parties otherwise agree. (Para 10)
(b) Arbitration - Agreement specifically providing for appointment of named arbitrators - Appointment of arbitrator should be in terms of the contract. (Para 14)
(c) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6) - Clause 64 of General Conditions of Contract specifically providing for appointment of named arbitrator - High Court appointing independent arbitrator - No sustainable. (Para 15)
(d) General Condition of Contract - Clause 64(3) - Respondent disputing no claim certificate issued by it to be of its accord - Claiming to have issued the same under undue influence of railway authorities - Dispute arbitrable - Appellant directed to appoint arbitrator. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
Clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract of the Railways stipulates for appointment if Railway officers as arbitrator. Instead, the High court has appointed independent arbitrators in both cases.
Finding of the Court:
Whenever an agreement specifically provides for appointment of named arbitrators, appointment of arbitrator should be in terms of the contract.
Result: Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
R. BANUMATHI, J.
These appeals arise out of the impugned judgments dated 15.05.2015 and 02.02.2015 passed by High Court of Delhi in Arbitration Petition No.168 of 2015 and Arbitration Petition No.531 of 2014 in and by which the High Court appointed an independent arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties, instead of directing appointment of arbitrator as per Clause 64 of General Conditions of Contract (GCC) which stipulates that Railways’ Officers should be appointed as Arbitrator.
2. Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as under:-
Facts in CA No.6400/2016:-
On 14.07.2010, Northern Railways awarded the contract for misc. civil engineering works such as construction of duty huts at L-xings, water supply arrangements, provision of station name boards etc. in connection with Rewari-Rohtak New Line to the respondent. The total cost of the work at accepted rate came to Rs.5,30,31,369.30. The work was finally completed on 31.03.2012. According to the appellant, final payments were made by the appellant to the respondent vide bill bearing Vr.No.00356/104/C/TKJ dated 06.05.2014. On the same day i.e. on 06.05.2014, parties also entered into a supplementary agreement which recorded full accord and satisfaction as on 06.05.2014. In the meanwhile, on 05.05.2014, respondent sent a letter to the appellant alleging that under the compulsion of circumstances, it had to sign the so-called final bill without protest as desired by the administration, otherwise heavy financial loss would have been caused to respondent and it may not be in a position to tender and execute further works. The respondent averred that a sum of over Rs.1.50 crores still remains to be paid to the respondent and calling upon the appellant to make the payment within 90 days. The respondent vide its letter dated 05.05.2014 invoked arbitration clause as contained under Clause 64 of General Conditions of Contract.
3. The appellant issued a reply dated 25.07.2014 rejecting the arbitration claim of the respondent, taking the stand that the respondent had signed the final bill and also signed the supplementary agreement which clearly stipulates that it was agreed between the parties that the respondent has accepted the said sums mentioned therein in full and final satisfaction of all dues and claims under the principal agreement.
4. The respondent thereafter filed Arbitration Petition No.168 of 2015 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the High Court for appointment of an arbitrator. Upon consideration of contention of the parties, the learned Single Judge held that the question whether the discharge certificate and supplementary agreement were signed by the respondent under duress, would require evidence to be led and is therefore, required to be examined by the arbitrator. So far as the appointment of arbitrator is concerned, the High Court held that since the Railways failed to appoint an arbitrator despite invocation of the arbitration clause by the respondent on 05.05.2014, the Railways forfeited its right under the arbitration clause and the learned Judge appointed Mr. Ram Prakash(Retd.), District and Sessions Judge as the sole arbitrator instead of directing the appointment of arbitrator as per Clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract.
Facts in CA No.6420/2016:-
5. An agreement dated 17.01.2012 was entered into between the Northern Railways and the respondent for construction of two lane road over bridge in lieu of L-xing near Muradnagar Railway Station at a cost of Rs.4,21,69,176.25/-. The work was completed on 03.08.2013. According to the Railways, the respondent received full and final payment vide final bill bearing Vr.No.280 dated 29.01.2014 and also signed a supplementary agreement dated 01.03.2014 acknowledging full and final settlement of all claims. It was also provided in this supplementary agreement that the principal agreement shall stand finally discharged and the arbitration claus
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.