AVINASH SOMAKANT BHATE, J.

( 1 ) THE applicant herein is a registered firm and had entered into a contract for construction of certain quarters in CISF area, of Ramagundam Super thermal Power Corporation. The said contract was executed on 11-11-1991. The applicant contends that he has completed the work to the entire satisfaction of the respondent-Corporation. It is alleged that during the progress of the said work, the Minimum Wages Act as prevalent in Andhra Pradesh was revised and amended and accordingly the petitioner/applicant was required to make enhanced payment by 55% over and above the wages which were payable to the workers at the time of execution of the contract. The petitioner/ applicant submits that he is entitled to reimbursement of such increase in 35 payment of wages to the workers. Secondly, it is alleged that the work had gone beyond the original date of completion due to the acts or lapses on the part of the respondent. Such acts or lapses have been stated in the petition. It is alleged that the applicant was required to incur extra overhead charges due to prolongation of the contract period. Another claim made is of 40 Rs. 1,00,000/- towards increase in the quantum of teak-wood in the manufacture of window-shutters. The respondents are bound to make payment towards this increase. Claim No. 4 is regarding increase in cost of gi wire mesh. The petitioner has thus claimed that they are entitled to total amount of Rs. 24,20,163/- under these four heads. The petitioner submits that 45 they have invoked Clause-56 of the General conditions of the contract for seeking arbitration, which was not accepted by the respondents. Notice was given by petitioner on 13-9-1996 to the respondent under Clause-56 of the contract to refer the matter to the arbitrator. On 14-10-1996, the respondent informed that the claim to refer the matter to the arbitrator was untenable and was negatived. As a result, the present application has been made under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

( 2 ) THE respondents have resisted the petition. It is not disputed that the petitioner was awarded the contract of work and that the petitioner has completed the work. It is, however, denied that there was any liability of the respondents to pay on account of additional wages required to be paid by the petitioner in view of increase in the minimum wages. It is also denied that the work was entirely satisfactory. The delay in work was not due to any lapse on the part of the respondent. The main objection raised by the respondents is that after completion of the work, the applicant/petitioner signed the measurement books in respect of all the measurements of work and the bills preferred by them were processed, and the amount was paid to them. The applicant received the amount in full and final settlement of the contract and has submitted "no Demand Certificate". The said certificate issued by the applicant states as follows:"notwithstanding any protest recorded by us in any correspondence, documents, measurement books and/or final bills etc. , we waive all our rights to lodge any claim or protest in future under this contract. We are issuing this No Demand Certificate in favour of NTPC Limited with full knowledge and with our free consent without any undue influence, misrepresentation, coercion etc. "it is therefore urged that in view of the No Demand Certificate issued by the petitioner, there is complete accord and satisfaction of the petitioner s claim. This certificate was issued on 28-11-1994 and the petitioner in fact received all the payments soon after the issuance of such No Demand Certificate. It is only on 31-5-1996 that the petitioner raised the dispute for the first time and later on gave a notice on 13-9-1996. This is apart from the fact that there is no merit in the claim intrinsically and in view of the accord and satisfaction. The petition is not maintainable as there is no arbitrable dispute subsisting.

( 3 ) AFT

Click Here to Read the rest of this document