NEW CONSOLIDATED CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD Vs. GLAXO LABORATORIES (INDIA) LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants, New Consolidated Construction Company Limited, filed on November 6, 1973, a petition tinder Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, praying: (a) that it may be declared that there was an arbitration agreement between them and the defendants, Glaxo Laboratories (India) Limited, as per Clause 43 of the general conditions of the contract mentioned in the petition, and that the said agreement applied to the dispute and differences which had arisen between the plaintiffs and the defendants as set out in the correspondence to the petition and also in the para. 8 of the petition; (b) that it may be ordered that the said agreement be filed in Court and the disputes be referred to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement; and (e) that the defendants be ordered to pay to the plaintiffs costs of the petition.

(2.) THE allegations made in the petition may be briefly summarised as under: The appellants, referred to as the plaintiffs, in the petition, numbered as arbitration Suit No. 1162 of 1973, on the Original Side, arc the building contractors. In or about November 1969, the defendants wanted to construct warehouses and godowns at their factory premises at Thana. The defendants appointed Messrs. Pheroze Kudianavala and Associates as their architects. The R.C.C. Designs for the said work was prepared by Mr. Kuton J. Dubash of DUBON Engineering Company, Consulting Engineer appointed by the said architects. The defendants gave a contract to the plaintiffs for the construction of the godowns at a total cost estimated at Rs. 24,66,228. The work was to be completed on or before July31, 1970.

(3.) THE work was completed in or about October 1970. Three buildings were constructed viz. T3, T4 and T5. The building T5 had a folded plate roof (V -shaped). On October 23, 1970, Messrs. Pheroze Kudianavala and Associates issued the progress payment certificate for Rs. 1,71, 000 out of which Rs. 1,00,000 was directed to be retained as it was alleged that a deflection was noticeable in the said folded plate. The defendants then through their architects instructed that R.C.C. Columns with saddles be provided at misspend below each plate; they also directed later that the gap between R.O.C. plate and saddle in all cases be grouted, and in addition that lateral ties be provided between columns.