VINOD KUMAR ANGI Vs. PUNJAB WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD
LAWS(P&H)-2011-4-77
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on April 28,2011

Vinod Kumar Angi Appellant
VERSUS
PUNJAB WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The present is a petition for appointment of an Arbitrator in respect of the disputes between the parties arising out of the work allotted to the Petitioner vide letter dated 14.11.2008.
(2.) The Petitioner submitted tender on 22.08.2008 for the construction of Dozer-cum-Tonner Room CMT, CCT, Supply and Fabrication and erection of Aluminum gate and 3 tone Hoist for chlorination 48 MLD, UASB, STP, treatment plant at Jamalpur, Ludhiana. After negotiations, the tender of the Petitioner was accepted vide communication dated 14.11.2008. Thereafter, the disputes arose between the parties and vide communication dated 06.01.2009 (Annexure P-8), the earnest money deposited by the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 63,800/- was forfeited and vide communication dated 02.03.2009 (Annexure P-9) the Petitioner has been debarred for tendering for two years vide an order passed by on or behalf of the Managing Director of the Board. Thereafter, the Petitioner has filed a writ petition challenging the action of the Respondent for forfeiting the earnest money and debarring the Petitioner from tendering. The said writ petition was disposed of on 27.07.2009 relegating the Petitioner to avail alternative remedy i.e. of arbitration in terms of objection raised by the Respondents. It is, thereafter, the Petitioner has approached this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator.
(3.) It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that in terms of Arbitration Clause between the parties, the Superintending Engineer is the named Arbitrator, but since the Petitioner has been debarred from further tendering for a period of two years on the recommendations of the Superintending Engineer by an order passed by the Managing Director, the Arbitrator agreed by the Petitioner under the terms of the contract is not suitable person to take cognizance of the disputes and decide the same. It is further argued that even the Superintending Engineer has not taken cognizance of the disputes even though the Petitioner has disputed the action initiated by the Managing Director of the Board till today.;


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