GAHC010196982025

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : Arb.A./3/2025

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMANDER WORKS ENGINEER (AF) BORJHAR,

P.O. AIRPORT, BARJHAR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN 781015

2: GARRISION ENGINEER (AIR FORCE)

TEZPUR

P.O SALONIBARI P.S. TEZPUR

DISTRICT- SONITPUR (ASSAM) -78410

VERSUS

SMTI KRISHNA DEVI @ SABITRI DEVI

W/O LATE SUKHRAM DHIMAN, C/O GHANSHYAM DAS DHIMAN, M/S S R ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, VILL. HALESWAR, PO. HALESWAR, P.S.

TEZPUR, DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN 784104

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. A GAYAN,

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S SAHU, FOR CAVEATOR,MS A ROY

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

Advocate for the appellants : Ms. A. Gayan

Advocate for the respondent : Mr. S. Sahu

Date on which judgment is reserved : 11.09.2025. Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 11.12.2025.

Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? :

Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER(CAV)

1. Heard learned counsel Ms. A. Gayan for the appellants and learned counsel Mr. S. Sahu for the respondent.

2. The appellants in this case are the Union of India represented by the Commander Works Engineer (AF) Borjhar and Garrision Engineer (Air Force) Tezpur whereas, the respondent is Smt. Krishna Devi @Sabitri Devi, representing M/S SR Engineering Construction.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the respondent's father, Sukhram Dhiman (since deceased), a proprietor of a concern namely, S.R. Engineering Construction entered into a contract with the appellants for construction of the permanent armament section under Garrison Engineer (AF), Tezpur and accordingly secured Work order vide CA No. CWE/TEZ/08 of 87-88. On completion of work, the respondent received payment of bill raised on

18.01.1993, certifying an endorsement of 'no further claim'.

4. The appellant submits that the dispute pertaining to the contract had already been raised by the respondent to the appellant vide Letter No.

SREC/TEZ/08/351 dated 11.12.1992, to resolve the issue by appointing an arbitrator under Clause-70 of the IAFW-2249 (General Conditions of Contract) of the arbitration agreement under the contract. This request was withdrawn by the respondent vide Letter No. SREC/TEZ/08/352 dated 11.01.1993. The respondent preferred an appeal under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, before the Court of Delhi, and the application was registered as T.S. Case No. 170/94, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Against the order, the respondent preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed, requiring the Lower Court to return the petition for filing at the proper forum, and accordingly, the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, vide order dated 17.12.1999, returned the petition to the respondent for presentation in the proper Court with jurisdiction.

5. It is further submitted that the respondent preferred an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, in the Court of the District Judge, Sonitpur numbered as T.S. (Arbitration) No. 19/2003, and the said suit was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 10.05.2004, against which the respondent preferred an appeal before this Court being Arbitration Appeal No.01/2005. This court vide judgment and order dated 21.09.2018, dismissed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Court of the District Judge, Sonitpur for appropriate adjudication of the application made by the respondent under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, on its own merit and in accordance with law.

6. It is submitted that the District Judge, Sonitpur, allowed the respondent's case vide judgment and order dated 26.08.2019. Accordingly, the matter was referred to Arbitration, and an arbitrator was appointed violating Clause 6(b) of the Tender agreement bearing CA No. CWE/TEZ/08 of 87-88. The Court in T.S.

Arbitration Case No. 19/2003, as per judgment and award dated 26.08.2019, appoint