ORDER :- The applicant is a firm dealing with civil contracts. On 1.10.2001first respondent entered into Contract Agreement No.63/CAO/C/SC/2001 for "development of sports complex at RRC Ground", Secunderabad, construction of swimming pool, construction of building complex, construction of spectro-gallery and other connected works. The estimated value of the work is Rs.1,86,74,718.49ps. The award of contract was preceded by tender process, acceptance of offer of the applicant by letter dated 18.4.2001. The work is to be completed within a period of nine months from date of acceptance. Applicant alleges that the work is of specialized nature and the actual quantities in the agreement exceeded over and above 25% of agreement quantities. It is also alleged that new items of works cropped up for which rates and quantities have to be fixed. Without doing this, applicant was pressurized to go ahead with new items of work pending settlement of rates and applicant estimates the work at Rs.2,75,63,975/-. It is also alleged that during the course of execution, changes were made in the orientation of swimming pool as well as pre-structure plans due to which the completion period was extended from time to time upto 31.1 0.2005.

2. A supplementary agreement dated 31.13.2003 (sic 31.3.2003) was entered into. The applicant allegedly accepted the rates under protest, but while entering into other two supplementary agreements on 25.3.2004 and on 29.11.2004, applicant was forced to sign without protest and therefore he wrote a letter on 3.4.2004 demurring free will and consent in signing those agreements. After completing the work applicant addressed a letter on 20.3.2006 raising final list of nine claims which are: (i) payment of final bill as prepared by the department; (ii) refund of security deposit; (iii) difference in the amount due towards excavation in cutting rock requiring blasting but done by chiseling; (iv) difference in rates for excavation in rock for laying the diverted AC Pressure Pipe Line; (v) amount due on account of difference in rates as accepted by the Railways and quoted by the applicant for additional items/quantities offered during the negotiations and those given as counter offer by the administration; (vi) extra expenditure due to maintaining the operation of the main pool by purification with bleaching powder and alum; (vii) additional expenditure involved in continuing the Head Office and site establishment, machinery etc., beyond the date of completion on Railway account; (viii) loss of profit due to prolongations of work on Railway account at 10% P.A.; (ix) interest on all the claims at 18% p.a. He also gave 'no claim certificate' dated 20.3.2006 reservmg right to claims as enumerated herein.

3. The applicant-was paid an amount of Rs.11,17,761/- towards final bill of 6.4.2006 and therefore he sent another letter dated 13.9.2006 modifying the claims made earlier. Thereafter he addressed a letter dated 13.9.2006 to the General Manager to refer the dispute to arbitration in terms of Clause 14 of General Conditions of Contract (GCC). In response thereto, the General Manager - second respondent herein; constituted Arbitration Tribunal consisting of Presiding Arbitrator and two joint Arbitrators to adjudicate claims (i) to (iv) and (vi) to (ix). Claim (v), namely, amount due on account of difference in rates as accepted by the Railways and quoted by the applicant for additional items/quantities offered during the negotiations and those given as counter offer by the administration. Aggrieved by the same, applicant moved this application under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act, for brevity), praying this Court to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

4. Respondents filed elaborate counter-affidavit through Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction-ill, South Central Railway (SCR), Hyderabad, fifth respondent, herein. The gist of the counter, to the extent relevant,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document