The court upheld the validity of the arbitration agreement and recognized the petitioner’s adherence to the procedural requirements for arbitration, irrespective of the respondent's claims regarding full payment and limitation.

JUDGMENT

1. A petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed for appointment of an Arbitrator.

2. The facts in brief as narrated in the petition are that the petitioner a registered partnership firm, was awarded the Tender vide Acceptance Letter bearing No. DTTDC/ENGG/I(196)/EE(PB)-III/135 dated 12th June, 2015 awarding the work to the petitioner. A Performance Guarantee of Rs.22,05,696/- in the shape of Bank Guarantee dated 17th June, 2015 and of Rs.6,35,000/- dated 18th June, 2015, were submitted. The Letter of Commencement of Work dated 19th June, 2015 was issued in favour of the petitioner. The Agreement bearing No. 02/EE(PB)-III/DTTDC/ENGG/2015-16 for execution of work for total contract amount of Rs.44,11,391/- was issued. The stipulated date of commencement of work was 27th June, 2015 and completion was 23rd December, 2015 as per the terms of the Contract.

3. The petitioner has submitted that work could not be completed within the stipulated period in view of the hindrances faced by the petitioner at site which were not attributable to it and led to delay in completion of work which could be completed ultimately on 11th April, 2016, for which a Completion Certificate was duly issued by the respondent. The petitioner wrote a Letter dated 19th December, 2019 requesting the respondent to release the amount of Rs.33,43,601/- which was withheld from the Final Bill passed on 22nd February, 2020. Having not received any response, the petitioner invoked Clause 25 of the Agreement vide his Letter dated 20th May, 2020 addressed to the respondent.

4. The CE of the respondent gave a Reply dated 19th June 2020 denying the contents of the letter of the petitioner. The respondent further directed the petitioner to invoke the Arbitration Clause by writing to the SE of the respondent in the first instance in terms of Clause 25 of GCC. The petitioner invoked the Arbitration Clause and wrote to the SE vide its Letter dated 10th August, 2020.

5. The respondent gave a Reply dated 04th September, 2020 reiterating its stand as taken in the previous correspondence. The petitioner then submitted a Letter dated 21st December, 2020 to the Chief Engineer but when no reply was received, the petitioner wrote Letter dated 21st December, 2020 requesting for appointment of the Arbitrator. When no response was received, he wrote a Letter dated 20th October, 2021 to the Managing Director and Chief Engineer requesting them to refer the matter to DRC. However, the respondent did not constitute the DRC, nor pay the claim amount with interest and failed to take any steps for appointment of the Arbitrator.

6. The petitioner then again wrote a Letter dated 29th January, 2022 requesting the Managing Director to appoint the Arbitrator within seven days for adjudication of the disputes.

7. It is submitted that disputes have arisen between the parties for release of the arrears of amount which the respondent has failed to pay despite repeated requests and letters. A prayer is, therefore, made that the Arbitrator may be appointed.

8. No formal reply nor any written submissions have been filed on behalf of the respondent.

9. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondent, however, has submitted that a full and final bill had been raised and accepted by the petitioner in April, 2022 and had also given an undertaking recording satisfaction. Having received the entire amount pursuant to the full and final bill, no arbitrable dispute remains between the parties and the present petition is liable to the dismissed.

10. Reliance has been placed on the case of Vidya Drolia vs. Durga Trading Corp., Civ