1. Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Railways for the respondents.

2. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act) for appointment of arbitrator.

3. Case of the petitioner is that it is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at Kolkata. Petitioner is engaged in various contract works under the respondents, i.e., NF Railways, Maligaon,

4. Following a tender process, petitioner was awarded the work “Replacement of existing (12.2m span) strengthened MGML girder Br. Nos. 408, 440, 446, 526, 539, 562 on the section LMG-TSK and Br. No. 19 & 22 on the section NRL siding under the jurisdiction of SSE/Bridge/LMG” for the contract value of Rs.3,96,36,037.10 vide letter of acceptance dated 31.05.2013. Thereafter, an agreement was entered into between petitioner and the respondents vide contract agreement No. DCE-26 dated 11.11.2013.

5. As per the contract agreement, the work was to be completed within a period of 18 months from the date of issue of the letter of acceptance dated 31.05.2013, i.e., on or before 30.11.2014.

6. It is stated that the contract agreement provided for a price variation clause as per which the contractor i.e., the petitioner would get the benefit of market price escalation during currency of the contract. However, petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of the price variation clause if extension of the period for completion of the work is on account of delay of the petitioner. But petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the price variation clause if extension of the contract period is granted for reasons other than delay on the part of the petitioner. If extension is on account of delay by the petitioner, respondents would be entitled to impose liquidated damages, but the same cannot be imposed if the work is extended for reasons other than delay by the petitioner.

7. In the instant case, execution of the work got delayed, which according to the petitioner was solely for reasons attributable to the Railways. As such, extension of the completion period was provided without imposing liquidated damages.

8. According to the petitioner, it is entitled to price escalation benefit during the extended period of contract execution i.e., from 30.11.2014 to 22.03.2016.

9. Clause 18 of the Contract Agreement provides for arbitration and settlement of disputes as per annexure-A attached to the contract agreement. It says that all disputes and differences arising out of or in connection with the contract whether during the progress of the work or after its completion and whether before or after determination of the contract shall be referred by the contractor to the General Manager, NF Railways and the General Manager, NF Railways shall within 120 days of receipt of such representation notify the decision in writing and on demand to the Arbitral Tribunal clarifying that arbitration and settlement of disputes shall be governed under Clauses 63 and 64 of the General Conditions of Contract, NF Railway, 2010.

10. Clause 63 and 64 of the General Conditions of Contract lays down the procedure for settlement of disputes, including demand for arbitration. As per Clause 64 (1) (iv, if the contractor does not refer his specific and final claims in writing within a period of 90 days of receiving the intimation from the Railways that the final bill is ready for payment, the contractor will be deemed to have waived his claim and the Railways shall be discharged and released of all liabilities under the contract in respect of such claims.

11. Petitioner submitted representation dated 20.09.2017 before the General Manager, N F Railways, complaining that the accounts department was not willing to settle petitioner’s bill raised under the price variation clause and also did not release security deposit. General Manager was requested to refer the matter t