Delhi High Court
Pioneer Properties & ... vs Govt. Of Nct Delhi & Ors. on 29 April, 2013
Author: Manmohan Singh
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: April 29, 2013
+ ARB.P. 331/2012
PIONEER PROPERTIES & CONSTRUCTION CO ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Nishant Datta, Adv. with
Ms.Sampath Sudha and Ms.Garima
Hooda, Advs.
versus
GOVT OF NCT DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.T. Mitra, Adv. for
Ms.Anjana Gosain, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an
Arbitrator.
2. A tender for the work of demolition and reconstruction of the general
chaupal and Naraina Village Delhi was floated. On completion of the tender
process, the petitioner was declared as the L-1 agency and was asked to
deposit the amount of performance guarantee within seven days. The date
of commencement of work was indicated as the 15th day from the date of
issue of letter of commencement. Accordingly, the petitioner by letter
No.PP&CC/CD-I/5XFC/2007/2 dated 5 th February, 2007 forwarded the
fixed deposit receipt No.040448 dated 5 th February, 2007 for an amount of
`1,08,198/-. Due to an inadvertent delay within the department, the letter of
commencement was issued on 21st May, 2007 by letter No.F.22(70)/2006-
7/ABCD-I/1008-21 whereby the work was awarded to the petitioner for an
amount of `21,63,952/-.
3. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. Reply by way of
affidavit of Sh.Raveender Kumar was filed by the respondent No.1 in which
it is stated that several request were made to the petitioner to start the work
and despite the provisional extension of time accorded to complete the work
till 30th June, 2008, the work was not started. Thereafter, a show cause
notice under Clause 3(a) and Clause 3(b) of the agreement was issued to the
petitioner by letter dated 30 th May, 2008. Despite the said notice, the
petitioner did not start the work or replied to the said notice within the
stipulated period of seven days. As a result, the department rescinded the
contract by letter dated 18 th July, 2008. After more than two years i.e. 11th
August, 2010, the petitioner raised some claims on the respondent No.1 and
on 4th January, 2011, the petitioner requested for appointment of an
Arbitrator. The relevant clause 25(ii) of the agreement provides that if the
contractor does not make any demand for appointment of arbitrator in
respect of any claims in writing within 120 days of receiving the intimation
from the Engineer-incharge that the final bill is ready for payment, the
claims of the contractor shall be deemed to have been waived and absolutely
barred and the Government shall be discharged and released of all liabilities
under the contract in respect of these claims.
4. In the present case, the contract of the petitioner was rescinded on 18th
July, 2010. Thus, it is clear that the claims of the petitioner after a lapse of
more than two years on 11 th August, 2010 are barred. The petitioner is now
estopped from raising any such claims in terms of clause 25(ii) of the
agreement.
5. I also agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that the
respondent, in view of the said clause, is absolved of all the liabilities. The
petition is not maintainable. The same is dismissed.
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
APRIL 29, 2013
