The court established that an arbitration agreement exists between the petitioner and the respondents, as the executing agency was acting on behalf of the principal; claims related to payment disputes must proceed to arbitration.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J. (Oral)--The present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `A&C Act, 1996') for appointment of arbitrator by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was awarded a work regarding construction of Police Post and Dog Kennels at Sector 3, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi vide Letter No. HPL/DGM(C)/TC/LOI/2014-15/162 dated 14th January, 2015. According to the stipulated terms, the date of start of work was 10th May, 2015 and was to be completed by 09th June, 2016 i.e., within a period of thirteen months. The work, however, got completed on 12th December, 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.3,01,72,704/- 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 (C) of respondent No.1 a Letter dated 29th March, 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 failed to take any decision where upon the petitioner approached the CMD of respondent No.1 vide Letter dated 09th May, 2019 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 Post and Dog Kennels at Sector 3, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi. On 11th August, 2014, 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 28 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 15th November, 2016, the work was completed and on 21st November, 2016, the petitioner submitted a final bill for gross value of the work done of Rs.10,45,97,527/-. After adjustment of already paid amount upto 10th RA bill and statutory deductions, net payable was Rs.56,82,880/- which was also paid on 10th October, 2017. The respondent No.1 after the payment of final bill released the performance bank guarantee on 07TH March, 2018 and refunded Rs.20,32,613/- on 03rd October, 2015 towards security deposit deducted from RA Bill as per the agreed clause. 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.3,01,72,704/- 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 liable to be d