SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Bom) 423

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
ASHOKA BUILDCON PVT. LTD. - APPLICANT
v.
MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION & ORS.-RESPONDENTS.
Arbitration Petition No. 24 of 2007,
Decided on: March 26, 2009

Advocates appeared:
Mr. R.S. Apte, Mr. A.A. Garge - Applicant.
Ms. Sowmya Srikrishna, Mr. Aditya Mehta - Respondent.

Submission of a No Claim Certificate under duress does not invalidate the arbitration clause, and disputes arising from a discharged contract can still be referred to arbitration if the validity of the discharge is disputed.

Headnote:

Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Appointment of Arbitrator - Section 11

Fact of the Case:

The Applicant, a Nominated Sub-contractor, completed construction work and submitted claims. Respondent No. 1 demanded a waiver of arbitration rights and issuance of No Claim Certificate for payment release. Applicant, under financial duress, submitted the Certificate. Disputes arose regarding the Certificate and payment, leading to a request for arbitration, which was declined by the Respondents.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the No Claim Certificate was submitted under duress and financial crisis caused by the Respondents, and the arbitration clause remained valid. The Court directed the Respondents to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes.

Issues: The main issue was the validity of the No Claim Certificate and its impact on the arbitration clause. The Court also addressed the genuineness of the Applicant's claim and the financial duress under which the Certificate was submitted.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the submission of a No Claim Certificate under duress does not extinguish the arbitration clause. It emphasized that disputes arising from a discharged contract can still be referred to arbitration if the validity of the discharge is disputed. The Court also highlighted the importance of voluntary settlement and the need to maintain the sanctity of the contract.

Final Decision: The Petition was allowed, and the Respondents were directed to appoint an Arbitrator in accordance with the Agreement's arbitration clause.

JUDGMENT

In this Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Applicant prays for a direction for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Section 11 of the Act to resolve the dispute that had arisen between the parties. The Applicant was appointed as Nominated Sub-contractor as a result of the agreement between Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and was awarded the construction of Road Over Bridge at Daund, Nepty and Dehre and Murtizapur. The Applicant completed this construction work and submitted certain claims before Respondent No. 2 for sanction and also requested Respondent No. 1 to form a Committee to review the said claims. When the bills were pending clearance, which according to the Applicant were of a huge amount, Respondent No. 1 issued a letter dated 8th February, 2002 calling upon the Applicant to waive its right of arbitration and give an undertaking that the decision of the Committee would be binding on the Applicant. The Applicant by its letter dated 9th March, 2002, addressed to the Minister of PWD, informed that it had no intention to request for arbitration if its disputes were amicably settled by the Committee. In case if the decision of the Committee was not acceptable to either of the party it should be left open for the parties to invoke Arbitration clause of the Agreement. Respondent No. 2 vide its letter dated 24th March, 2003 then informed the Applicant that it proposed to make payment of Rs. 199.04 lacs against the Applicant's claim and required the Applicant to file undertaking as well as unconditional No Claim Certificate for releasing of the payment. After representations were made by the Applicant, the Respondents increased the amount from Rs. 199.04 lacs to Rs. 216.82 lacs. In view of the financial duress which the Applicant was facing, it submitted No Claim Certificate vide its letter dated 6th August, 2005 on the condition of releasing the payment within 90 days. The validity of the No Claim Certificate was increased from time to time and lastly view letter dated 22nd March, 2006 upto 15th May, 2006. This No Claim Certificate was still not sufficient and Respondent No. 2, vide its letter dated 18th April, 2006, again demanded a separate No Claim Certificate for each individual contract. Since the amount was not being disbursed, the Applicant reiterated their request from time to time orally and in writing. The letter dated 18th April, 2006 reads as under:-

"IRCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

IRCON/WZ/ROB-MAIN/Vol. VIII/26

18/04/2006

M/s. Ashoka Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 1-2, River View, Near Ashok Stambh, Nasik 422002.

Dear Sir,

Sub. - Claim Settlement of ROB's at Daund, Nepty & Dehre (Super structure) and Murtizapur.

Ref. - 1. Your letter No. ABL/Tech/Let/07/2005 dated 06.08.2005.

2. Your letter No. NIL dated 22.03.2006.


This has reference to your above cited letters and other correspondence taken place relating to settlement of claims pertaining to ROB's at Daund, Nepty & Dehre (Super structure) and Murtizapur. You are requested to submit separate No Claim Certificate for each of these individual contracts on non judicial stamp paper of Rs. 100/- as per the endorsed drafts. The No Claim Certificates as per the draft are to be signed by the authorised signatory. Further, signed No Claim Certificates should be submitted so as to reach this office within 3 days of the date mentioned in the No Claim Certificates for taking further needful action by this office towards release of payment.


Thanking you.

Yours faithfully, For and on behalf of IRCON International Ltd. (V.D. Kewalramani) JGM (Civil) Encl.: 3 Nos Draft No Claim Certificates."

An amount of Rs. 216.82 lacs was sanctioned and vide letter dated 10th May, 2006 the Applicant wrote to Respondent No. 2 as under:-


"Date: May 10, 2006.

To,

Jt. General Manager IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.,

Central Rly's New Administrative Bldg. 7th Floor,

D.N.


































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top