Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) INSTANT application has been filed under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of Arbitrator.
(2.) THERE is no dispute between the parties that agreement was executed which contains appointment of Arbitrator for resolving dispute and the disputed claim, of which reference has been made in Para 7.8 of application, arises from the terms of agreement itself. Objection raised by counsel for respondents is that once the applicant has signed the final bills and certificate of no claim has also been signed in terms of Clause 43 of General Conditions of contract, of which reference has been made in Para 13 of reply, the dispute does not call for to be arbitrated while invoking Clause 64 of General Conditions of contract. It is also not in dispute that notice was served, but respondents have failed to invoke Clause 64 in appointing Arbitrator in terms of agreement. As such, this Court has to make appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act, 1996.
(3.) IN Union of India v. : [1988]3SCR402 the contractor accepted the four final bills and gave no claim declaration in respect of the four contracts and thereafter, wrote a letter to the Chief Engineer stating about amount which was due on account of work executed and requested him to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator. In the light of objection raised by counsel for respondents with respect to no claim declaration made, the Apex Court observed as under: It is true that on completion of the work, right to get payment would normally arise and it is also true that on settlement of the final bill, the right to get further payment gets weakened but the claim subsists and whether it does subsist, is a matter which is arbitrable.;