MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,J. - (1.) This application under Sections 10 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by applicant M/s Rajendra Prasad Bansal, New Delhi, a proprietorship firm, praying for appointment of arbitral tribunal for resolution of its dispute with non-applicants Union of India and its functionary. Facts, as averred in the application, are that applicant firm is an Engineering and Contractor firm.
(2.) It has been awarded various contracts for engineering/construction etc., work in the public as well as private sector. According to the applicant, it has been sending the labour and machinery for the purpose of accomplishing the contractual work. It has been working for North Western Railway, for installation and completion of the projects in its area of jurisdiction. A tender was floated by the non-applicant no.1 for the purpose of accomplishing the gauge conversion project instituted between the Bandikui-Agra Fort Stations. The non-applicant no.2, namely, the Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), III, North Western Railway, Jaipur, accepted the offer dated 30.06.2004 of the applicant amounting to Rs.68,21,649.36 in response to the tender No.AFBKI/ GC/JP/66. In the course of time, the non-applicant no.2 further found it expedient to enter additional contract agreement titled as 1st supplementary contract agreement No.Dy.CE(C)CA/130/1 dated 02.12.2004. By means of that agreement, the non-applicant no.2 assigned the applicant works amounting to Rs.35,93,001.12 and accordingly, the applicant started working upon the newly assigned works. Subsequently, non-applicant no.2 further assigned second and final supplementary contract agreement to the applicant for a sum of Rs.7,61,057.43 on 16.05.2006 and the applicant immediately started working. It was thereafter that a further third supplementary agreement was executed between the parties whereby additional work of the value of Rs.6,51,802.22 was awarded to the applicant on 18.10.2006.
(3.) Mr. J.P. Gargey, learned counsel for applicant, argued that the parties had expressed agreement for resorting to the agency of arbitration for settlement of the disputes, if any, which arise between them regarding work execution under the agreements. The regulations and the conditions, which governed the execution of the contract and performance of the work thereunder, have been laid down by the non-applicant no.1, in conditions no.63 and 64 of the agreement. The applicant had to complete the work as per the schedule. The applicant has been continuously personally looking into the various works in connection with the gauge conversion projects launched between the Bandikui and Agra Fort stations, however, the extensive work was not solely under control and power of the applicant and therefore, the applicant was time and again required to contact the non-applicants for the purpose of seeking not only payments but also for seeking their directions, advises, desires, conveniences and so on. The applicant ensured the quality and shape of the work meets all the expectations of the non-applicants and the public at large using the rail transport in the segment, and completed the work. Thereafter, the applicant approached the non-applicant no.2 for settlement of its account and passing the final bills. It is highly regrettable that the non-applicants have adopted adamant attitude and have been reluctant to consider the claims lodged by the applicant. The applicant repeatedly contacted the non-applicants for immediately clearing the outstanding balance in the account. The applicant also pointed out negligent approach of the non-applicant no.2 to the non-applicant no.1, but both have been grossly careless in releasing the outstanding balance in favour of the applicant. Therefore, the applicant sent a notice to the non-applicants on 03.04.2007 specifically mentioning to resort to the arbitration. Neither any reply was given to the said notice nor the non-applicants expressed any basic curtsy to acknowledge the receipt of the notice. When the non-applicants did not send any written communication to the applicant in response to the said notice, the applicant repeatedly visited their officers and sought to offer cooperation for resolution of the dispute. The applicant then send four reminders to the non-applicants and personally approached them but it is unfortunate that they did not feel the necessity of resolving the dispute.;