HEMANT GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act) for appointment of an Arbitrator in respect of the disputes arising out an Agreement dated 31.08.2007. Vide the aforesaid agreement, the petitioner was awarded work for providing earth filling and brick paving in law lying area in New Grain Market (NGM), Gohana.
(2.) THE petitioner asserts that the administrative approval for the said work was accorded for Rs.45,12,000/- at the risk and cost of Shri Naveen Kumar, Contractor. THE petitioner completed the work to the tune of Rs.25,45,264/-, but during site visit of the higher Officers of the Board alongwith Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister, the SE/Executive Engineer were directed to fill the low lying area of the Mandi. It is the case Arb. Case No.89 of 2009 of the petitioner that the petitioner carried out the said work, but the final bill amounting to Rs.4,88,056/- has not been released. In the reply, the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner has not obtained written approval/sanction before executing the excess work done at the site and that the payment for the sanctioned work has already been released to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the balance payment.
(3.) THE question; whether the petitioner is entitled for the balance payment for the excess work, is a disputed question of fact. Such dispute is required to be decided by an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 25-A of the Agreement.;