The main legal point established in the judgment is that a 'no claim certificate' obtained under financial duress may not preclude the party from seeking arbitration, and disputed questions of facts and law can be looked into by the Arbitrator.

1. This arbitration application is filed with a prayer to appoint Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate upon the disputes interse the parties to the arbitration application.

2. The case of the applicant, in nutshell, is as follows:-

It is the case of the applicant that the applicant is registered Government Contractor. In pursuance to the notice inviting tender by the respondents, the applicant being successful tenderer and complied with the eligibility criteria in all respects, was allotted to the work of Nanded Extension of PIT Line From 21 to 24 coaches and additional PIT line for 16 coaches length and provision of sick line facility agreement No. 5/Sr.Den/Co-Ord/Ned dated 9.5.2007. The said allotment of the work was in pursuance to the offer submitted by the applicant. It is further case of the applicant that details in nutshell of the afore mentioned work are as follows;-

a. Date of Agreement : 09/07/2007.

b. Agreement No. 5/Sr.DEN/Co-Ord/NED dated 09/05/07.

c. Date of completion without extension : 02/10/2007.

d. Extension granted:

I. 03/10/2007 to 28/02/2008

II. 29/02/2008 to 31/05/2008

III. 31/05/2008 to 31/08/2008

IV. 01/09/2008 to 13/12/2008

V. 01/01/2009 to 15/02/2009

VI. 16/02/2009 to 15/04/2009

e. Date of completion of the work : 15/04/2009

It is further case of the applicant that the work could not be completed within stipulated time, for the reasons solely attributable to respondent. The work was hampered due to various reasons, such as the extensions granted to the F.O.B. work, other obstructions of existing welding room and store room of Mechanical Department for carrying out a drainage work near the pit line, non handing over the site, obstruction of the existing staircase of Foot Over Bridge, no access for executing 55 Mtr. Length of Addl. Pit line, variations during course of execution of work of substantial nature, delayed payments in gross contravention with the contractual covenants.

It is further case of the applicant that without any extension and with pre-requisite condition that both parties to the contract comply with their reciprocal obligation strictly in its order of performance, without any change on the site condition, quantities of work as has been stipulated in the tender, contract work was expected to be completed within 9 calender months.

It is further case of the applicant that though the time limit for completion of contract has been stipulated to be essence of the contract by virtue of various terms in the contract imposing reciprocal obligation, so also making performance of the contractor/plaintiff contingent to the successful compliance in its entirety by defendant; and due to existence of clause of extension of time, this stipulation is rendered nugatory. Thus, period of the tender work can be extended with the approval of the defendant in the event of unforeseen difficulties beyond the control of the contractor and due to site conditions or change in the quantity.

It is the case of the applicant that the applicant has specifically averred in the letters dated 10.11.2009, 17.9.2010 addressed to the respondents to draw his attention to the bona fide, genuine and legal claims and requested for appointment of Arbitrator. It is the case of the applicant that the respondent by adopting hyper technical approach without considering the genuineness of the claim raised by the applicant, in sheer non application of mind, failed to consider the request for appointment of Arbitrator. It is further case of the applicant that even though the terms and conditions of the contract provide for reference to Arbitrator to the extent of 20% of the total value of the work, applicant expressly reserves his right to approach and take appropriate recourse to available legal proceedings. It is further case of the applicant that, if the respondent gives consent for remaining claim to be raised before the Arbitrator, the applicant has no objection for referring these additional disputes to the Ar