N.P.SINGH - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THE appellants have questioned the validity of the order, passed by the High Court, rejecting the claim of the appellants that there was no agreement between the appellants and the respondent - Delhi Development Authority, (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') to refer the dispute between them to an Arbitrator. The appellant No. 4 - M/s. Jain Rolling Mills is a registered partnership firm and the appellant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant) is the Managing Partner. The respondent issued a notice inviting tenders for supply to steel bars of various diameters to the extent of 20,000 Mt. Tonnes. The appellant obtained a tender form from the said respondent on 16-11-1982. The tender was submitted along with a covering letter dated 18-11-1982. After negotiations, the tender was accepted only for supply of 10,000 Mt. Tonnes of steel bars of various diameters. A formal agreement was executed. Thereafter some dispute arose between the parties and it appears that the respondent vide its letter dated 23-10-1984 rescinded and annulled the contract for the balance quantity of 3512.285 tonnes. The Engineer Member of the authority in purported exercise of the powers under Clause 14 of the agreement, appointed an Arbitrator to make an Award relating to the disputes between the appellant and the respondent. An Original Miscellaneous Petition was filed before the Delhi High Court on behalf of the appellants challenging the appointment of an Arbitrator on the ground that appellants were not party to any Arbitration Agreement. That petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. On appeal being filed the Division Bench came to the conclusion that in view of Clause 14 of the agreement any dispute between the parties had to be referred to an Arbitrator to be appointed by the respondent. In the agreement which was entered into between the appellants and the respondent it was stated :- "WHEREAS the Contractor has submitted tender for the work "Supplying and stocking of Cold Twisted deformed Steel Bars Conforming to Is : 1786-1979 of various dias at any D.D.A. Stores in Delhi/New Delhi" and the same has been accepted by the Authority on the terms and conditions contained in the tender forms and conditions attached herewith in the letter of acceptance dated the 27-12-82. NOW THIS DEED WITNESS AS UNDER : That the terms and conditions contained in the tender form and conditions of the contract attached to this deed, and also the letter of acceptance dated the 27-12-82 shall be binding between the parties". To that very agreement, the tender form with the heading 'Tender and Contract for supply of materials' was enclosed. The tender form has an endorsement "issued to M/s. Jain Rolling Mills", signed by the Executive Engineer, Housing Division, on 16-11-1982. Appellant has signed the agreement aforesaid and the different pages of the tender form on behalf of appellant No. 4, the firm. The Executive Engineer has signed on behalf of the respondent. Paragraph 14 of the said tender form contains the arbitration clause, saying that 'except where otherwise provided in the contract all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions, hereinbefore mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or to any other question, claimed, right matter or thing whatsoever, in any way arising out of or relating to the contract, designs drawings specifications, estimates instruction orders or these conditions or otherwise concerning the work or the executions on failure to execute the same whether arising during the progress of the work or after the completion or abandonment thereof shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the person appointed by the Engineer Member, D.D.A. at the time of dispute...."
(3.) THE stand of the appellant is that the said clause shall not be deemed to be a part of the agreement, inasmuch as it is only part of the tender form which is issued to every contractor intending to supply materials to the respondent. It is just generalrules for the guidance of the contractors. It may be pointed out that the notice inviting tenders clearly stated 'Contract documents consisting of the detailed plans, complete specifications, the schedule of quantities of the various classes of work to be done and the set of conditions of contract to be complied with the person whose tenders may be accepted will also be found printed in the form of tenders, can be seen purchased at the Divisional office between the hours of 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. every day, except on Sunday and Public Holidays' (emphasis supplied). From the notice inviting tenders it is apparent, that to whomsoever the contract was to be allotted, the conditions in the printed form of tender had to be complied with. It appears because of the aforesaid conditions mentioned in the notice inviting tenders, at the time of the execution of the agreement, the appellant, the Managing Partner, on behalf of the firm signed each page of the said form of tender including the last page. On behalf of the respondent, it has been signed by the Executive Engineer and the form of tender has been attached to the agreement referred to above. In the agreement it has been clearly stated that the terms and conditions contained in the tender form and the conditions of the contract attached to the said deed and also the letter of acceptance dated 27-12-1982 shall be binding between the parties. THE effect of the aforesaid agreement shall be that the tender form and conditions of the contract attached to the said deed to agreement including the letter of acceptance dated 27-12-1982 shall be deemed to be the part of the agreement between the appellants and the respondent including that in event of dispute in respect of any claim, right or matter or thing whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the contract shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the person appointed by the Engineer Member of the respondent.;