JUDGMENT The petitioners have challenged award dated 29/03/2004 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act-1996 (for short," Arbitration Act.) 2. A contract was executed by and between the parties in respect of replacement of BER A/C plant at NAD Karanja based on the tender dated 27/01/1996. The respondents’ tender was accepted on 09/04/1996. The amount of contract was Rs.86,13,066/- (Rupees Eighty six lacs thirteen thousand sixty six only). The period of completion was 15 months. The date of commencement/ completion as per the work order was 24/04/1996 to 23/07/1997. The work was actually completed, as contended by the respondents, on 11/08/1999/01/10/1999. The claimant/respondents submitted final bill on 17/07/2002 but returned by the petitioners on 31/07/2002. Thus, as dispute arose a sole arbitrator was appointed by letter dated 26/03/2003, in view of terms and condition 70 of IAFW-2249 being part of the contract between the parties. The date of completion of contract as per work order for phase-I was 23/07/1997. The certificate of completion for phase-I was of 29/07/1999. There was no certificate of completion for phase-II. As final bill was returned unpaid, on 20/08/2002 a notice to invoke arbitration was issued by the respondents. As there was no appointment made, by an order dated 31/01/2003 under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act-1996, this court has appointed an arbitrator. On 03/04/2003 the arbitrator entered into the reference.

3. The arbitrator fixed the date, time and place for hearing of the matter. The arbitrator has passed award dated 29/03/2004.

4. The respondents has preferred the present Arbitration Petition No.355 of 2004. He has also filed Arbitration Petition No.354 of 2004 for another contract between the parties.

5. By an order dated 24/11/2004, the Court had decided Arbitration Petition No. 354/2004, the petition under section 34 was dismissed. Based on the above order the present petition was also dismissed.

The petitioners therefore, preferred an appeal and by an order dated 08/11/2006 the Division Bench has admitted the matter and after hearing the same remanded the Arbitration Petition No.355 of 2004 for re-hearing. By an order dated 07/02/2007 the present petition has been re-admitted.

6. A preliminary objection was raised by the petitioners on arbitrability of the claims. The learned Tribunal has rightly arrived at the conclusion based on Clause 70, as the arbitration clause provides that before arbitration clause was invoked there should be; either "completion" of works agreed to by both parties or; "alleged completion". In the present case, the respondents contended that the work had been completed, the petitioners however disputed the same. In view of this, the dispute was rightly referred to the arbitrator as the completion of the work itself was the bone of the contention. The other circumstances, as recorded by the learned Tribunal, is that the plant could not have been put to use from 29/07/1999 unless the contract had not been completed by the respondents.

7. In the present case as referred above, in Arbitration Application No. 212 of 2002 filed by the petitioner, arbitrator was appointed by this court on 31/01/2003 and thereafter, arbitrator entered into the record. The submission as raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the dispute was not arbitral, therefore, has no force.

8. Claim No.1:-

The amount of the final bill-After perusing all the above as well as the documents and after considering the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, I have noted that though time was fixed for completion of the work, yet there was delay on the part of the petitioners (U.O.I.) as they failed to handover the building for dismantaling the old A/C plant. The petitioners altered the job as per their own will, that resulted in great delay in handing over the building to the contractor and in the result the contract could not be completed in time as s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document