JUDGMENT - J.N. PATEL, J.:---M/s. Vishindas Bhagchand, a Partnership Firm, has applied to this Court for appointment of Arbitrator in order to resolve the disputes with the respondents.

2. It is the case of the petitioner-Firm that the respondents invited tenders for construction of Post Water Treatment Plant, Hydrogen Generation Plant, A.H. Plant, Switchgear Building for C.T. Electrical Groundings and other associated works at Chandrapur Thermal Power Station, Stage-III 2X500 MW-Unit 5 and 6, as per the tender No. 8 BC. The petitioner's tender was accepted by the respondents and they were issued works order dated 3-11-1988. Under the contract, the work was to be completed on 31-1-1991, but the same was required to be continued upto 1-8-1991 when it was short closed by the respondents.

3. It is the case of the petitioner-Firm that though the work was short closed on 1-8-1991, the respondents had not cleared the final bill of the petitioner. By the letter dated 24-10-1996, the respondent No. 3 called upon the petitioner for settlement of certain issues for finalising the appeal, pursuant to which the petitioner attended the office of the respondent No. 3 and discussed the pending issue, but the same could not be settled and, therefore, the petitioner served the respondents with notice dated 22-8-1997, raising the pending issue and calling upon the respondent No. 1 to make appointment of Arbitrator as per terms of the contract. By notice dated 20-9-1997, the respondents denied the claim lodged by the petitioner and expressed inability to comply with the notice by stating out various reasons in their notice. According to the petitioner, inspite of this, the parties continued to correspond and negotiate in the matter for settlement of bill and it is in the course of these negotiations, certain issues between them were settled.

4. It is submitted that the respondent No. 3, by the telegram dated 27-7-1999, called upon the petitioner to attend his office for acceptance of the final bill on which the partners of plaintiff-firm on 7-8-1999. The final bill as prepared by the respondents was not acceptable to the petitioner and, therefore, on the same day, the petitioner had given a letter to the respondent No. 3, informing that the measurements are not in dispute. The reduced rates of aluminium window/Ventilators are not accepted. The petitioner also did not accept the penal rate of recovery of steel. The petitioner pointed out to the respondent No. 3 that the final bill is accepted under protest. Again by letter dated 9-8-1999, the petitioner-firm informed the respondents that the final bill is not acceptable to them and requested for release of the bank guarantee worth Rs. 6.02 lacs. The petitioner had pointed out to the respondents that the final bill is minus 1.50 lacs and, therefore, it is not acceptable to them and offered that the respondents, till the settlement of the final bill, may retain the bank guarantee of Rs. 2.50 lacs and return the balance bank guarantee of Rs. 3.52 lacs. The parties had discussion in the matter in the office of the respondent No. 3 on 4-1-2000 which was placed on record by the petitioner through letter dated 5-1-2000. It is the case of the petitioner-firm that the respondents released the bank guarantee worth Rs. 3.52 lacs and did not settle the dispute and, therefore, again by letter dated 16-3-2000, requested the respondents to settle the said issues. But, the petitioner did not get any response. Therefore, the petitioner, by letter dated 30-9-2000, pointed out to the respondents that there are three pending issues relating to (i) penal steel recovery, (ii) payable rate for sluice valves, (iii) Payable rate for supply of aluminium doors and windows. In the said communication, the respondents were informed that on failure to settle the aforesaid three issues, the petitioner will be constrained to resort to arbitration. The respondents having failed to settle the matter, the petitioner-firm, by registere

Click Here to Read the rest of this document