Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) The applicant has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of an arbitrator. It is claimed that an agreement containing arbitration clause was entered into between the parties on 26.4.2006 for construction and maintenance of a road under the scheme of respondent Development Authority. This agreement has been annexed along with this application as Annexure-1. The work was to be performed within a period of one year i.e. by April, 2007. The applicant claims that it proceeded with the contract and completed the work, in terms of the agreement. It is claimed that as against the total project cost of Rs.54 lacs, the applicant was paid a sum of Rs.46 lacs by the year 2007, where-after no further amount was paid.
(2.) It transpires that a dispute arose towards the end of the year 2007 as to whether the work was properly performed or not? Materials have been placed on record in the counter affidavit to demonstrate that work performed was unsatisfactory and proceedings to blacklist the applicant were also initiated on 18.7.2007. It further appears from the record that towards end of the year 2007 or beginning of the year 2008, the same work was assigned to some third party and the work was got completed. The applicant has however brought on record a document along with its rejoinder affidavit to claim that contract work was completed by the applicant to the satisfaction of the authorities. The prayer in this application is opposed on the ground that the claim sought to be adjudicated upon is a dead/stale claim and is not liable to be referred to arbitrator. It is in this context that facts of the present case would have to be analysed.
(3.) This Court finds that there is an issue as to whether work awarded was satisfactorily performed by the applicant or not? It is not in dispute that the contract work was required to be completed within a year. It is also not disputed that the alleged contract work was undertaken as per applicant before end of the year 2007. The applicant asserts that it had received the amount pursuant to the contract till the year 2007 and no amount was paid thereafter. Since contract work was completed as per applicant and no payment was made after 2007, a cause had arisen to the applicant. A period of nearly four years expired, even thereafter without any action on part of the applicant. This is sought to be explained by contending that applicant repeatedly approached the authorities for payment of amount, but the same was not released. The facts do not end here. The applicant being dissatisfied with the denial of payment, ultimately approached High Court by filing Writ Petition No.61972 of 2011, for a direction to the respondents to release the amount payable towards final payment along with 24% interest w.e.f. July, 2006 till the date of filing of the writ petition. A further prayer was made to direct the respondents to decide applicant's representation. This petition was dismissed by this Court vide following order dated 1.11.2011:- Heard Mr.S.N. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Mr. Praveen Kumar Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Mr.M.C. Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. Petitioner's main grievance before this Court is with regard to certain money claim simpliciter arising out of contractual obligations. According to us, contractual obligations between the parties cannot be adjudicated in writ proceeding in the manner as proposed, particularly when the amount is not admitted. Therefore, it is not a fit case for interference by this Court. Hence, the writ petition can not be admitted and is, therefore, dismissed, however, without imposing any cost. In any event, passing of this order will in no way affect the right of the petitioner, if any, to approach the appropriate Court or forum in accordance with law. ;