Decided on August 03,1983

District Panchayalbhavnagar Appellant
Mahmad Haji Gafur And Co Respondents


- (1.) The applicants were the opponents in Civil Misc, Application No. 200 of 1976 filed by the respondent in the Court of the Civil Judge (S. D.) :it Bhavnagar for the appointment of an Arbitrator in lieu of the Superintending Engineer, who was to act as an Arbitrator under Clause 30 of the contract between the parties in B-2 Form and who had allegedly neglected or refused to work as such.
(2.) A short resume of facts - may be stated as under:- The applicant No, I-District Panchayat, Bhavnagar, acting through its Executive Engineer, District Panchayat Division, invited tenders for the work of flood damage repairs to Botad Turkha Road in B-2 form in the month of November 1970. The respondent, M/s. Mohmad Haji Gafur & Co-.. a registered Partnership firm), having its Office at Bhavnagar submitted the tender which was accepted by the Executive Engineer, District Panchayat Division. Bhavnagar on 4-12-1970. The applicants paid the security deposit as per the terms of the B-2 form which came to the tune of Rupees 2,320/- on 4-12-1970. The respondent completed the contractual work, but in the meantime certain disputes had arisen between the parties. It was alleged that the applicants failed to) give the detailed programme of the work as per the provision of Clause 2 of the B-2 formats well as the applicants failed to supply the materials to the respondent in time. It was also alleged that the drawings and detailed drawings were also) not supplied by the applicants, in time and the respondent was not given the full possession of site also in time. In other words, the allegation is that it was because of the defaults on the part of the applicants that the completion of the work was delayed. It is further alleged that the delay in the completion of the work caused damage to the respondent. It is also the case-of the respondent that it is entitled to the refund of the security deposit amount (4) Rs. 4640/- since the work was completed without any complaint on the part of the applicants but the refund is not made. 11 is also the allegation of the respondent that the applicants had deducted a sum of Rs. 1000/- from the running account bill of the respondent illegally and unjustifiably. In other words, the respondent assessed its claim against the applicants to the tune of Rs. 16,000/- on several counts.
(3.) The respondent called upon the Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Circle, (Applicant No. 2 herein) to start arbitration proceedings in regard to the .several disputes outlined above, lie being the sole Arbitrator Under Clause 30 of B-2 form which constituted 1he agreement between the parties. However, the allegation of the respondent is that the Superintending Engineer failed to take Lip the reference in hand within one month from the receipt of the communication dated 1-7-1976. The applicant No. 9 neglected and/or refused to work as a sole arbitrator. On account of his refusal and/or neglect the respondent (, Shri S. A. Desai, B. E. (Civil), A. M 1. E., retired Deputy Chief Engineer Western Railway, the sole Arbitrator as per the provisions of Section 9 of the Indian Arbitration Act. 1910, The respondent demanded from the applicants to concur in the same appointment of Shri S. A. Desai as the sole Arbitrator. The applicants duly received the notice from the respondent on 248-1976 but failed to concur in the appointment of Shri Desai U the sole Arbitrator. It is, therefore, that the respondent applied to the Civil Court for revoking the authority of the Superintending Engineer to work , as a sole Arbitrator under the contract and to have an appointment of Shri S. A. Desai as a sole Arbitrator in place of the-Superintending Engineer, It is submitted that the respondent is still ready and willing to resolve the dispute by resorting to arbitration.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.