( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 19. 8. 1994. In a suit filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, by the said order the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the arbitration clause requires "notified claims" alone to be referred to arbitration and in the present case the appellant does not have a "notified claim" which could be sent for adjudication by an Arbitrator. Hence the application was refused.

( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the appellant has come up with this appeal. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant tendered for interior works (part II) furniture, furnishing etc. for construction of CMTI, Gurgaon, Haryana with the Indian Oil Corporation. A formal agreement dated 22. 7. 1993 was executed between the parties. The estimated value of the works was Rs. 77,71,667 based on schedule of rates annexed with letter dated 31. 3. 1993. The appellant was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,94,300 as security deposit being 2. 5% of the accepted value as stipulated under clause 2. 12 of the General Conditions of Contract. The appellant furnished bank guarantee for Rs. 1,94,300. According to the appellant, he completed the work to the tune of Rs. 13,30,933, but the respondent company did not make payment of the running bill. On that ground, the appellant gave a telegram on 20. 2. 1994 to the respondent informing that the appellant does not intend to proceed with the execution of the work. The appellant claimed Rs. 13,30,933 towards work done for which running bill has been submitted, Rs. 6,50,000 towards loss of profit which the appellant would have earned, if he had been allowed to complete the work, and also sought release of the bank guarantee of Rs. 1,94,300.

( 3 ) WHEN the appellant filed the case for reference to arbitration, the respondent contended that the Court could not refer the matter to arbitration inasmuch as the appellant had no "notified claim". What is meant by a "notified claim" must be gathered from clauses 6. 6. 1. 0 and 6. 6. 3. 0 of the contract. A reading of the above clause 6. 6. 1. 0 would show that in case the contractor considered "that he was entitled to any extra payment or compensation in respect of the works over and above the amounts due in terms of the contract as specified in clause 6. 3. 1. 0. or in case the contractor wanted to dispute the validity of any deductions made or threatened by the owner from any running account bills or any payments due to him in terms of the contract, the contractor shall forthwith give notice in writing of his claim in this behalf to the Engineer-in- Charge and the Site Engineer within ten days from the date of the issue of orders or instructions relative to any works for which the contractor claim such additional payment or compensation. The said notice shall give full particulars of the nature of such claim, grounds on which it was based, and the amount claimed. " The clause makes-it clear that unless the contractor has a notified claim by following this procedure, "the contractor shall not be entitled to raise any claim nor shall the owner anywise be liable inrespect of any claim by. the contractor unless notice of such claim shall have been given by the contractor to the Engineer-in-Charge and the Site Engineer in the manner and within the time as aforesaid . The clause further mentions what happens if the contractor does not follow this procedure. It says "the contractor shall be deemed to have waived any or all the claims and all his rights in respect of any claim not notified to the Engineer-in-Charge and the Site Engineer in writing in the manner and within the time aforesaid".

( 4 ) SO far as the other clause 6. 6. 3. 0 is concerned, it makes it clear that "any or all claims of the contractor notified in the manner in which provided in clause 6. 6. 1. 0 shall remain at the time of preparation of final bill by the contractor, then the same could be separa