An arbitration agreement is enforceable despite claims of payment completion, recognizing the agency relationship between parties, allowing disputes to be resolved through arbitration.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J. (Oral)--A petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrator, has been filed on behalf of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was awarded a work regarding construction of Police Station at "C" Block, Janakpuri, New Delhi vide letter No. HPL/DGM(ENGG.)/DP/JP/2012-13/01 dated 31st October, 2012. According to the stipulated terms, the date of start of work was 14th November, 2012 and was to be completed by 13th February, 2014 i.e. within a period of fifteen months. The work, however, got completed on 15th November, 2016. The final bill as raised by the petitioner was not paid by the respondent No.1. It is asserted that a sum of Rs.2,81,78,727/- by way of pre-final bill of the undisputed items is due to the petitioner from respondent No.1.

3. It is submitted that the disputes arose between the parties. The procedure for appointment of arbitrator is laid down in Clause 27 of Special Conditions of Contract (hereinafter referred to as `SCC'). In compliance to the same the petitioner has written to the DGM (Engg.) of respondent No.1. a letter dated 03rd April, 2019 putting him to notice to take a decision on the subject matter within one month but he failed to give any decision compelling the petitioner to approach CMD of respondent No.1 by way of an appeal and also for appointment of an arbitrator, who was also required to give a decision within one month of the receiving of the letter of the petitioner. However, he also failed to take any decision where upon the petitioner approached the CMD of respondent No.1 in terms of Clause 27 of SCC, but he also failed to give any decision. Hence, the petition has been filed for appointment of an arbitrator by this Court.

4. The respondent No.1 in his detailed reply has asserted that it is the agent of respondent No.2 appointed to execute the work of construction of Police Station at "C" Block, Janakpuri, New Delhi. On 07th October 2011 the respondent No.1 had floated the tender for and on behalf of respondent No.2. All the acts done by respondent No.1 were, therefore, for and on behalf of respondent No.2 being its agent. Moreover, as per Clause 26 of SCC, the respondent No.1 is liable to make the payments only as and when the corresponding payments are received from respondent No.2. On 20th September, 2016 the respondent No.1 handed over the building on completion of work to respondent No.2. A final bill for gross value of the work done of Rs.8,22,97,808.07 plus escalation of Rs.82,93,609/- total Rs.9,05,91,418.00 was raised. After adjustment of already paid amount upto 14th RA bill and statutory deductions, net payable was Rs.8,05,25,308.00 which was also paid on 13-07-2017. The respondent No.1 after the payment of final bill released the performance guarantee on 05th February, 2018 and refunded Rs.17,82,697/- towards security deposit deducted from RA Bill as per the agreed clauses. The contract was concluded to the satisfaction of the parties. The respondent No.1 has already made the payments and the contract had been fully discharged. It is also asserted that the final bills were fully settled and the present alleged claim is an afterthought and not maintainable. The petitioner had not raised any bills claiming Rs.10,26,79,864/- as claimed in the Summary of Claims in the present petition. The petitioner ought to have submitted the bills in respect of the alleged claims along with tax invoice receipts as per Clause 12 of SCC which has not been done. It is asserted that the petition is not maintainable and is