JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH SHASTRI, J.

1. By way of this First Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant - Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation has challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and order passed by the learned District Civil Judge, Bharuch dated 26.03.2016 passed in Civil Misc. Application No. 209 of 2014 under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as to the "Act") by virtue of which judgment, an application of present appellant came to be rejected.

2. The facts which has given rise to filing of this appeal are that the appellant - Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation had invited a tender for providing and laying down 1200 mm dia GRP water supply line from Angareshwar Intake Water Works to GIDC Compound at Bhersam. The said invitation of tender was in or around April, 2005. The Corporation had invited the sealed tenders for such work in two separate sealed covers i.e. technical bid and price bid. Since the rates were found to be competitive of respondent, the same was accepted and an agreement came to be executed with regard to the said work. The terms and conditions of the contract also accepted by both the sides i.e. appellant as well as respondent. The contract to that effect was executed between the Executive Engineer, GIDC and the opponent claimant herein. The said contract was also having a specific clause with regard to the dispute relating to contract how to be resolved and for that Clause-20 was in detail mentioned indicating the procedure and terms of such resolution.

2.1. It is the case of the appellant that a work order was issued in favour of respondent company on 18.10.2005 but from the beginning appellant - corporation has found that the respondent - claimant remained throughout negligent and the work progress was also not satisfactory and it was found too poor.

2.2. On account of such, the appellant had repeatedly served notices but till the termination, no progress was found to be satisfactory. The appellant had also drawn the attention of the respondent that sufficient ROU is available for laying down pipelines. But it is the matter of record that respondent could not procure sufficient quantity of pipe at the site. The period which was mentioned was requiring 82.44% progress in the work but till that moment namely when corporation informed about poor progress in the work only progress was made to the extent of 18.43% (6175 ruit pipe) and this slow progress and process was despite notices having been served which ultimately compelled the corporation to terminate the contract on 29.07.2006.

2.3. It is the case of the appellant - corporation that despite aforesaid situation, the respondent has submitted its final bid and statement of demand for illegal termination and alleging various breaches of GIDC and then claimed an amount of Rs.14,41,42,629/-. The respondent issued notice for recovery of the said amount on 15.05.2010 to the Deputy Executive Engineer, Bharuch and not to the Executive Engineer and 30 days period was mentioned for such payment otherwise it was informed that claimant would resort to arbitration for resolving the dispute.

2.4. It is the stand of the appellant - corporation that immediately within four days of issuance of notice for recovery without waiting for full tenure of the notice within a period of four days only