ORDER

1. Petitioner has filed this Arbitration Revision under section 19 of Madhyastam Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (Adhiniyam, 1983) whereby the Reference Case No.71/20098 has been dismissed in view of the judgment passed in the State of M.P. v. Kamal Kishore Sharma, 2006 (2) Arb. L.R. 305.

2. The facts of the case in short are as under:

2.1 The respondent Municipal Corporation, Ujjain invited tender for the construction of a Wrestling Arena in Sheer Sagar Stadium, Ujjain. The petitioner submitted a bid which was accepted on 11.3.2003. An agreement was executed between the parties on 22.4.2003 for the total amount of the contract of Rs.90,00,000/-. The petitioner was served with the work order dated 19.5.2003 with the direction to complete the work within 11 months. Vide letter dated 10.3.2006, the petitioner informed the respondent that it will not be possible to make any progress in the work for want of payment/running bill. The respondent vide letter dated 24.3.2006 directed the petitioner to complete the work otherwise same would be completed by some other agency at the risk and cost of the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the aforesaid letter by submitting that he is ready to start the work if outstanding payments are made.

2.2 Vide letter dated 8.8.2006, the Executing Engineer of the respondent terminated the agreement of the petitioner which was served upon the petitioner on 7.9.2006. The petitioner submitted a reply to the notice vide letter dated 8.9.2006 but the respondent issued a tender for the rest of the work to some other agency without making a final measurement of the work done by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action the petitioner approached the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal by filing a reference case on 7.3.2008 claiming the amount of Rs.35,37,945/- along with an interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of presentation of reference till payment. The aforesaid amount was claimed on the following counts:

2.3 After notice respondent filed a written statement denying all the claims of the petitioner alleging breach of terms and conditions of the agreement. According to the respondent, the petitioner himself abandoned the work on 25.6.2004 and the balance of work got to be executed by a debitable agency. It has further been alleged that the petitioner did not submit a bank guarantee for three years as per Clause 67(2) and 67(10) of the agreement. The bank guarantee so submitted by the petitioner was valid for one year which came to an end on 27.10.2004, therefore, the amount payable vide the fourth bill, running bill has been adjusted against the bank guarantee. However, the respondent did not submit any counterclaim before the tribunal. The respondent has raised an objection that the refe