- (1.) On 16.09.2010, in absence of counsel for the applicant, this application was adjourned by giving three weeks' time to the applicant to file rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of the respondents. The matter then was adjourned on several occasions, but no rejoinder has been filed so far.
(2.) On 14.10.2011, time was granted to learned counsel for the applicant to prepare himself to argue the application, but when the matter came up before the court on 15.02.2013, none was present to pursue the application, hence, the application was adjourned for 22.02.2013. The matter then was adjourned several times, but no steps have yet been taken to file rejoinder. Today too, a request is made by learned counsel for the applicant to get the application adjourned, but I am not at all inclined to accept the same.
(3.) Briefly stated, facts of the case as averred in the application are that the respondent M/s. Subh Builders, a partnership firm, invited quotations for construction of a building complex on plot No.222/16, Saheli Marg, Udaipur. In pursuance thereto, the applicant gave his quotation and that was accepted through a letter dated 15.11.1997. A formal contract was executed between the parties on 20.12.1998. As per the applicant, the contractual work was required to be started at the site in the terms of the agreement and for that purpose, a proposed plan with necessary complete specifications was to be given. The work given was to be completed by 31.12.1999, however, due to certain eventualities including non-cooperation of the respondent, the work could not be completed and the term of contract was not extended, though provided under the agreement itself. It is also asserted on behalf of the applicant that certain supplementary bills were also submitted, but those were not cleared. Accordingly, by a notice dated 04.11.2003, the applicant made a request to the respondents to invoke the arbitration clause to settle the dispute between the parties. Name of Mr. H.K. Hingorani, retired Chief Engineer was also proposed by the petitioner for appointment as Arbitrator. Under a communication dated 04.12.2003, respondent M/s Subh Builders responded to the notice dated 04.11.2003 by denying its responsibility to appoint an Arbitrator on several counts including that the applicant did not execute any work under the contract. Despite receiving reply to the notice dated 04.11.2003 in the month of December 2003, no action was taken by the applicant for getting an Arbitrator appointed.;