Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(4) The execution of the work led to certain disputes raised by the respondent. At the instance of the respondent, the Chief Engineer (N.D.Z.H) C.P.W.D., New Delhi, on January 15, 1993 referred the disputes under clause 25 of the agreement to Mr. S. S. Juneja, Arbitrator, Ministry of Urban- Development, Govt. of India, for adjudication. The Arbitrator entered upon reference on the same day and issued notices to the respondent and the aforesaid Executive Engineer. Pursuant to the notice, the Executive Engineer appeared before the Arbitrator and participated in the proceedings and so did the respoadent. Ultimately the Arbitrator made and published his award on February 8, 1994 and gave notice of the publication of the same to the Executive Engineer and the respondent. On receipt of the notice, the respondent on February 18, 1994, filed an application directing the Arbitrator to file the award. In this application, Union in this Court, which came to be numbered as Suit No. 444/94, for of India through Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Urban Development. New Delhi was arrayed as the first respondent and the Arbitrator as the second respondent. On February 21, 1994 the Arbitrator filed the award in the Registry of this Court. On February 25, 1994 the Registrar directed issuance of notices of filing of the award to the respondent herein and the appellant. Union of India through Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Urban Development and also directed the listing of the matter on May 5, 1994. Meanwhile on March 9, 1994 an official of the office of the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Urban Development Nirman Bhawan New Delhi received the notice of the filing of the award. The notice bears the following endorsement of the official of the addressee :- "RECEIVED without enclosures" There is another endorsement which reads thus :- "Full particulars of the case may be intimated sd/- 9-3-94"
(9) The main grievance of the appellant is that was not given proper opportunity to contest the award' as no proper notice of the filing of the award was served on the Secretary of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Urban Development and on the Executive Engineer who had been representing the Union of India before the Arbitrator. Besides the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development was not given any particulars of the matter nor it was apprised of the Division to which the case pertained. He pointed out that the notice only indicated the name of the Arbitrator without giving any further (10) We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed on both sides that the Executive Engneer, Ghaziabad Central Division, C.P.W.D. Hindon Air force- Station being the Engineer-in-charge of the work signed the agreement on behalf of the President of India as per clause 2(e) of the conditions of Contract. According to the said clause Engineer-in- charge was made in charge of the work and was empowered to supervise the same. It can not also be disputed that the Executive Engineer represented the Union of India before the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator entered upon reference on January 15, 1993 and issued notice to the Executive Engineer, Ghaziabad Central Division, C.P.W.D. A perusal of the record of the Arbitrator shows that the respondent-claimant was sending copie's of the papers filed by him before the Arbitrator to the Executive Engineer, thus recognizing the fact that the Executive Engineer was representing the Union of India in the arbitration proceedings. For the purpose of illustration letter of the respondent dated February 16, 1993 addressed to the Arbitrator, a copy whereof was sent to -Executive Engineer is reproduced below :- "DATED16 Feb. 1993. Before Sh. S. S. Juneja, Arbitrator, Ministry of Urban Development, 6th Floor, Middle Wing, Janpath Bhawan. Jahpath, New Delhi-110001. In the matter of Arbitration- between : 1. M/s. Surinder Kumar & Bros., Claimant 2. Union of India. .....vs..... .Respondent. Name of work : Replacement of double security fencing at Hindan Airfield, Hindan. Arbitration case No. ARB/SSJ/664. As per the direction issued by the Ld. Arbitrator the claimant, hereby submits the statement of facts in brief Along with Exh. C-1 to C-40. The claimant request the Ld. Arbitrator to direct the Respondent to allow us inspection of all relevant records pertaining to the work, such as M.Bs. M.A.S., paid voucher etc. to enable us to file certain details, 853 The claimant reserve their right to add alter or modify the statement of facts. sd/- Surinder Kumar, Claimant. Cc : Executive Engineer, Gcd Along with the S.F. & Exh. C-l to C-40."