Prem Shanker Asopa, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. This is an arbitration application under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 arising out of agreement No. 1/2006 -2007 which contains arbitration clause No. 23 for referring the dispute to an independent arbitrator.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the claimant -applicant was awarded a work for construction of 200 Feet wide Mahal Road in Jagatpura for a consideration of Rs. 5,43,16,532/ - and agreement No. 01/2006 -2007 (Annexure -3) was executed between the parties which contains arbitration clause 23 in respect of which work order No. JDA/ZE -9/D -199 dated 22nd April, 2006 (Annexure -2) was issued in its favour. As per the terms of the contract, the applicant submitted Bank Guarantee of Rs. 54,31,700/ - which was further renewed up to 25th April, 2011, As per the case of the claimant applicant, he completed the work of Rs. 3,31,25,702/ - on the land made available from time to time that too after expiry of the original period but out of which also an amount of Rs. 4,25,000/ - has been deducted by the non -applicants. The non -applicants have terminated the contract of the claimant applicant on 4th July, 2011 and on the same date, the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 54,31,700/ - has been revoked and the non -applicants received the said amount from the Bank and also did not make the payment of the final bill to the claimant applicant despite several correspondence in this regard. Thus, a dispute has arisen between the applicant and the non -applicants. Counsel for the applicant submits that on 5th August, 2011 the applicant, in person, has submitted an application (Annexure -22) in the office of non -applicants as per clause 23 in the prescribed proforma along with a pay order of Rs. 1,00,000/ - for referring the dispute to the empowered standing committee but the matter was not referred within the prescribed period of 30 days. Therefore, the applicant has filed the present application seeking appointment of independent arbitrator.
(3.) COUNSEL for the non -applicants has filed a reply to the arbitration application and in the reply a preliminary objection has been raised that clause 23 is not an arbitration clause and further it has been submitted that the meeting of the empowered standing committee was held on 3rd October, 2011. Therefore, the arbitration application has become infructuous.;