O R D E R

The applicant, which is stated to be a registered Partnership Firm, says that they were awarded the work of 'Trivandrum Division – proposed manning of unmanned level crossings 27 Nos in TCR, ALLP & MVLK P way sections electrical arrangement for gate lodges (hereinafter referred as 'said work')by the respondents, through Ext.P1 work order, which specified that it is a 'Works Contract' to be read in conjunction with the General Conditions of Contract, 2003 (GCC) with its latest amendments.

2. The applicant says that, even though they performed the work satisfactorily, several disputes arose from and relating to the terms of the contract; and that, going by Clauses 63 and 64 of the GCC, it is incumbent that all of them are adjudicated and resolved through the process of Arbitration. They say that, they therefore, issued Annexure A28 letter to the respondent, asking them to either accede to their claims – the details of which are specified therein; or in the alternative to nominate an Arbitral Tribunal in terms of Clauses 63 and 64 of the GCC. They allege that, however, even though the respondents accepted Annexure A28, they refused to either accede to the demands or to constitute an Arbitral Tribunal – which they ought to have done as per the GCC within a period of sixty days therefrom; thus constraining them to approach this Court through this Arbitration Request, invoking the provisions of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).

3. The afore submissions made on behalf of the applicant by their learned counsel – Smt.Sethulakshmi K.K, were answered by Sri.Nikhil Benny, learned counsel representing the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, relying upon a statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 5. He admitted that the contract in question was awarded to the petitioner, but that they had delayed the work for the reasons solely attributable to them. He submitted that nevertheless this, and at the request of the applicant, the time was extended until 31.05.2013 with a condition 'to execute a rider agreement on or before 30.04.2013', which is evident from Annexure A14, but that they refused to execute the same. He submitted that, however, in an act of fairness, the respondents still released an amount of Rs.4,42,116/- to the petitioner, but that they even refused to execute the aforementioned agreement, which constrained them to communicate Annexure R4(a) letter dated 06.11.2020 for such purpose. He concluded, asserting that, in fact, the applicant agreed to their mistakes and to accept the payments released to them, which is evident from Annexure R4(b) and thus prayed that this Arbitration Request be dismissed.

4. In reply, Smt.Sethulakshmi K.K, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that, as is manifest from Annexure A14, her client was never asked to execute an additional agreement but that it goes to say that if her client did not complete the work within the extended period, further action in terms of Clause 62 of the GCC would be initiated. She submitted that, therefore, it is limpid that several disputes have arisen between the parties, which are deserving of being adjudicated and resolved only through the mechanism of Arbitration. She then vehemently contended that even though, as per Clauses 63 and 64 of the GCC, the respondents were obligated to nominate an Arbitrator within a period of sixty days on receipt of Annexure A28, they have refused and failed to do so and thus reiteratingly prayed that this Arbitration Request be allowed.

5. I have evaluated the afore submissions of the learned counsel for the parties very carefully and have also examined the various materials and documents on record.

6. The fact that the applicant had been granted an award for the aforementioned works is admitted and Annexure A1 agreement takes in the provisions of the GCC is also without contest.

7. That said, the respondents do not oppose the contention of the