Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J. - (1.) THE petitioner was awarded tender for work of construction of 129 Nos. G.F. + 129 Nos. FF & SF flats including internal P.H. and E.I. services in Housing Board Colony, Sector 52, Gurgaon, on 26.11.2009, which was followed by a written contract. It is the case of the petitioner that the work was completed on 28.02.2012 but there are outstanding dues of the petitioner. The agreement contains clause 33 as the Arbitration Clause and in view of the disputes, the petitioner invoked the Arbitration Clause vide letter dated 16.05.2013. In terms of sub clause 7 of Clause 33 requiring security deposit of 7.5% to the total value of the claimed amount, the petitioner sent a bank draft of Rs. 14,44,500/ - alongwith the said letter as the claim raised was of Rs. 1,92,60,000/ -.
(2.) THE aforesaid request was, however, rejected vide letter dated 04.07.2013 on the ground that the claim was time barred. It was stated that the final bill had been paid on 16.08.2012 and in view of arbitration clause 33(9)(e) the claims had to be filed within a period of six months from that date i.e. on or before 15.02.2013 but they were filed on 16.05.2013. It is informed that post the issuance of this letter, the amount deposited by the petitioner was also refunded. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the time period for making the claim cannot be reduced to suit a clause in view of the judgment in Pandit Construction Company Vs. Delhi Development Authority : 2007(98) DRJ 96.
(3.) THE aforesaid legal position cannot be disputed by learned counsel for the respondents, who, however, submits that the petitioner should deposit 7.5% of the claimed amount once again as per clause 33(7) whereupon the designated authority will appoint the Arbitrator.;