GOVIND MATHUR, J. - (1.) THIS application is preferred to have a direction for appointment of an independent arbitrator to resolve the dispute arising between the parties under the contract dated 30.7.1996 named as "Construction of 120 men barracks including sanitary installation, water supply and drainage for 172 Bn. at B.S.F. Campus, Karanpur (Rajasthan)".
(2.) THE facts relevant to be noticed are that the applicant, a partnership firm, entered into a contract with the respondent No.2 on 30.7.1996 for construction of 120 men barracks including sanitary installation, water supply and drainage for 172 Bn. at Border Security Force Campus, Karanpur (Rajasthan). As per the agreement arrived the work relating to the contract was to commence on 9.8.1996 and was to be completed within a period of nine months thereafter. As per the applicant all necessary raw material, machines, tents were placed at the site of construction and the labourers were also engaged, but no lay out plan was available with the respondents and that caused non -commencement of the work assigned. The applicant made request to the respondents to supply the lay out plan but of no consequence. The respondents instead of providing lay out plan rescind the contract agreement under a latter dated 26.5.1997. A direction was also given to the applicant firm to deposit the earnest money of Rs.1,00,000/ -. The applicant being aggrieved by the action of the respondents mentioned above submitted a notice to the respondent No.2 on 1.12.1997 to refer the matter to the arbitrator to initiate arbitral proceedings. Suffice to mention that clause 25 of the agreement dated 30.7.1996 provides that all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions mentioned in the agreement and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever in any may arising out of or relating to the contract, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions, orders or these conditions or otherwise concerning the works or the execution or failure to execute the same whether arising during the progress of the work or after the cancellation, termination, completion or abandonment, shall be dealt with through arbitral proceedings. In spite of giving notice dated 1.12.1997 no arbitrator was appointed by the respondents, thus, an application was filed by the applicant before the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sonepat on 23.6.1998. The application aforesaid after hearing the parties came to be dismissed on 16.7.2009 on the count that the court was not having territorial jurisdiction. After dismissal of the application the applicant firm preferred this application before this Court on 19.5.2010. This Court by order dated 14.12.2010 issued notices to the respondents by noticing the fact that earlier application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1996") was filed in the court of Sonepat and that came to be rejected on 16.7.2009 under the order Anx.25 holding that the said court had no jurisdiction and the application could have been filed in the State of Rajasthan.
(3.) THE respondents after having service of the notices are contesting the matter mainly on the count of delay. It is submitted by counsel for the respondents that the agreement in question was executed in the year 1996 and the grievance of the applicant pertains to the year 1997. No reason exists now to initiate arbitral proceedings for such a stale dispute.;