- (1.) HEARD Mr. K. K. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. C. S. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents/State of U. P.
(2.) THIS arbitration petition seeks appointment of an Arbitrator to decide the claim of the petitioner/contractor. The short facts leading to this appeal are: Sometimes in the year 2002, the petitioner/Company was appointed as a Contractor for part of the work under the Prime Minister Gramin Sadak Yojana on 24-4-2002. The contracted work was to be completed by 23-1-2003. The petitioner could complete only 25% of the work during that time. He applied for extension on 7-4-2003. His case was that the proper designs were not supplied by the respondents and that it was an area where he was working is affected with dacoits. The respondents started deduction of Rs. 10,000/- per day for not completing the work and ultimately the contract was rescinded on 23-5-2003.
(3.) THE petitioner served a notice on 23-7-2004, raising a claim of about Rs. 55 lacs. This consisted of loss of security unlawfully forfeited, cost of levelling pillars provided but not paid for, idling of labour and machinery, unlawful deduction, loss of profit @ 10% on balance cost of work and also the cost of arbitration, which would become necessary. The respondents did not entertain that request and, therefore, this arbitration petition has been filed for appointment of an Arbitrator by invoking Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.;