1. This case has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the purposes of appointment of Arbitrator.

2. The petitioner-company and the respondents have entered into an agreement for the construction of Boys Hostel. The petitioner-Company completed the construction work, accordingly the respondents, whatever amount was due, have been paid to the petitioner-company by way of full and final settlement, nothing left for further dispute.

3. The petitioner-company demanded the cost incurred in „carriage of materials? amounting to Rs.63,18,345.49/-. The Registrar of respondent-Chankya National Law University informed the petitioner-company that the representation was referred to the consultant M/s Gherzi Eastern Ltd. Kolkata, it has opined, unless or otherwise, specially mentioned in the BOQ of civil work, extra claim for carriage is not admissible and vide letter dated 09.08.2012 it was informed to the petitioner-Company that claim for extra carriage is not admissible to the petitioner-company, in view of earlier communication vide letter dated 12.10.2011, henceforth no correspondence in this regard will be entertained.

4. The petitioner-company vide letter dated 03.03.2012 has demanded the interest on the amount of Security Deposit. Finally, the petitioner-company vide letter dated 07.05.2013 requested the respondents for appointment of Arbitrator in terms of the contract that was replied by the respondent-Chankya National Law University vide letter dated 18.05.2013, where it has been mentioned about Clause-25 of the Contract, which stipulates 45 days time limit for making demand for appointment of Arbitrator in respect of any claim from the date of intimation of final bill ready for payment. It has further been informed that the claim of the petitioner-company shall be deemed to have been waived and absolutely barred and respondent would be treated to have been discharged of all the liabilities as per the terms of stipulation mentioned in the agreement. Accordingly, the demand for appointment of Arbitrator is barred as final payment has been made on 07.1.2012 and within 45 days thereafter no demand for appointment of Arbitrator was made in respect of any claim and as such, the claim does not carry any merit for consideration and rejected. It has further been stated that interest on Security Deposit is also absolutely illusionary and without any substance.

5. In such view of the matter, when the respondents have failed to respond positively, the petitioner has filed the present application claiming appointment of Arbitrator, in terms of Clause-25 of the agreement, empowers the petitioner in case respondent does not respond in positive mode within 30 days of the request of the contractor, but before adjudicating this dispute, the Court will be obliged to deal with objection raised by the respondent.

6. Before going to the merit of the case, it will be appropriate to quote Clause-25 of the Contract, which reads as follows:-

“Settlement of Dispute & Arbitration.

Except where otherwise provided in the contract all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, design, drawings and instructions here-in-before mentioned and so to the quality of workmanship of materials used on the work are as to any other question, claim right matter or thing whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to contract, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions, orders or these conditions or otherwise concerning the work or the execution or failure to execute the same whether arising during the progress of the work or after the cancellation, termination, completion or abandonment thereof shall be dealt with as mentioned hereinafter.

(i) If the contractor considered any work demanded of him to be outside the requirements of the contract, or dispute any drawings, record or decision given in writing by the authorized representative of the Employer or any matter in connection w