At, High Court of Delhi
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.L. GUPTA
For the Appearing Parties : P. N. Kumar, Anurag Kumar, Advocates.
R. L. Gupta, J. (Oral)
For the This petition has been moved under Sections 8 and 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 for a direction to respondent No. 2 to appoint a
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
rbitrator in terms of clause 25 of the agreement between the parties. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents and service was duly effected on the respondents. A letter dated 10th July, 1990 was received from Sh. R. N. Tyagi, Executive Engineer II saying that since the petitioner had not submitted his claim in the proforma already sent to him by the Chief Engineer (CZ), CPWD, New Delhi, the agreement may not be filed. I am of the view that if there was any such objection to be raised on behalf of the respondents, it should have been raised by means of an application and not by sending a letter because no notice of such letters received by post is taken by the Court. The very fact that this letter has been sent shows that respondents have been duly served. There is clause 25 of the agreement between the parties which provides that all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specification, designs, drawings etc. or otherwise concerning the works in the contract shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the person appointed by the Chief Engineer, P&T/C.P.W.D. in chance of the work at the time of dispute. Since no appearance has been put in this court in spite of due service, I am of the view that disputes raised by the petitioner in para-6 of the petition are liable to be referred to an arbitrator to be appointed by respondent No. 2. Therefore, this petition is allowed, Respondent No. 2 i.e. The Chief Engineer (CZ) MBRHP, Seva Bhawan, R. K. Puram, New Delhi is directed to appoint an arbitrator within 8 weeks from today. A copy of the order be sent to the respondent No. 2 for compliance. Petition stands disposed off