Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are:

the petitioner was awarded a contract for construction of Vice Chancellor/Administrative Building at new campus of LUVAS, Hisar, pursuant to which an agreement was entered into between the parties on 12.11.2018. A dispute regarding payment arose between the parties, pursuant to which a notice was issued by the petitioner on 08.01.2019 1 of 10 (Annexure P-5). Accordingly, the dispute between the parties was referred to the Dispute Review Expert on 28.07.2020 in terms of the Conditions of Contract (Standard Bidding Document Procurement of Civil Works), Annexure P-1. The Dispute Review Expert decided the matter on 04.11.2020 in favour of the petitioner. The decision of the Dispute Review Expert not being acceptable to the respondent-university, it issued a notice to the petitioner on 28.11.2020 proposing to appoint a sole arbitrator as per clause 24.3 of the Conditions of Contract (ibid). The aforesaid proposal was opposed by the petitioners vide their objections dated 01.12.2020 (Annexure P-9) on the ground that the matter could not be decided by the sole arbitrator. The respondent-University thereafter asked the petitioner by its letter dated 31.12.2020 to propose the names of three arbitrators, out of which one could be appointed as the arbitrator of the contractor and also asked the petitioner to deposit claim fee @ 5% of the claim amount in terms of clause 25.1 of the Conditions of Contract (ibid). The petitioner refused to deposit the claim fee as he was satisfied with the order passed by the Dispute Review Expert and did not wish to raise any claim or initiate any arbitration proceedings against the same. However, the petitioner vide his letter dated 29.01.2021 proposed the names of three arbitrators in terms of clause 24.3 of the Conditions of Contract (ibid) and again raised its objection as regards the repeated demands by the respondent-university to deposit claim fee @ 5% of the claim amount for proceeding with the arbitration.

We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length. In context of the issues raised before this Court, it would be appropriate to consider clauses 24 and 25 of the Conditions of Contract which is part of the Standard Bidding Document Procurement of Civil Works (Annexure P-1), which are in the following terms:-

"24. Dispute Redressal System 24.1 If the contractor believes that a decision taken be the Engineer was either outside the authority given to the Engineer by the Contract or that the decision was wrongly taken, the decision shall refer to the Dispute Review Expert as mentioned in the contract data within 1.4 days of the notice of the Engineer's decision. Procedure for Disputes

We are of the considered opinion that a conjoint reading of clauses 24 and 25 of the Conditions of Contract makes it manifestly clear that while, both the employer/university and the claimant/contractor, can initiate arbitration proceedings if they are aggrieved by the decision of the Dispute Review Expert, however, the condition of deposit contained in clause 25.1 applies to only those arbitration proceedings initiated by the claimant/contractor.

In view of the aforesaid interpretation of the clauses made by this Court, the stand taken by the respondent-university in the present petition cannot be accepted as it is apparently misconceived and has no support either from clauses 24 and 25 of the Conditions of Contract notified alongwith the Standard Bidding Document Procurement of Civil Works or interpretation thereof. Thus, in view of the above and the facts of the present case, we are not required to go into the question of or consider the validity of clause 25.1 in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Icomm Tele Ltd. (supra), as this Court has held that the petitioner is not required to make any deposit as it is not invoking the arbitration proceedings.