Union of India and Others vs M/s. Rakesh Gupta and Brother

Laxmi Narain Mittal, J.

C.M. No. 19333-CII of 2013:

For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit of Advocate, delay of 38 days in re-filing the revision petition is condoned. The application stands allowed accordingly.

C.M. No. 19334-CII of 2013:

Allowed as prayed for.

Main Case:

Union of India and its functionaries have filed this revision petition u/s 115 of the CPC (in short "- CPC), assailing judgment dated 11.01.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by the trial court and judgment dated 02.04.2013 (Annexure P-4) passed by the lower appellate court, thereby allowing petition filed by respondent-Contractor u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short - the Act).

Facts in the case are not in dispute. The petitioners allotted some work to the respondent-Contractor. The dispute arose between the parties. Respondent filed petition u/s 20 of the Act for referring the dispute to Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause contained in agreement between the parties. Petitioners herein resisted the said petition alleging that the respondent-Contractor had signed the final bill and ''No Claim Certificate'', and therefore, he could not seek reference of the alleged disputes to the Arbitrator. However, both the courts below have allowed the petition filed by the Contractor u/s 20 of the Act and Arbitrator, to be appointed by petitioner No. 3 herein, as per terms in the arbitration clause, within one month of the judgment, has been directed to make the Award within requisite period. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been filed to challenge the judgments of the courts below.

I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioners reiterated that the respondent- Contractor, having signed the final bill and ''No Claim Certificate'', is not entitled to get the alleged disputes referred to Arbitrator. The contention cannot be accepted. The Contractor had to sign the final bill and No Claim Certificate'' to receive the amount, which the petitioners themselves admitted to be due to the Contractor. If the Contractor had not signed final bill and ''No Claim Certificate'', even the said amount, which was admitted to be due to the respondent, would not have been paid to him. However, after signing the bill and the Certificate aforesaid, the Contractor lodged his protest vide letter dated 16.06.1987, stating that the bill should be treated to have been signed under protest. Evidence led by the Contractor in the trial court stood unrebutted. The petitioners herein did not lead any evidence. Existence of the arbitration clause in the agreement executed between the parties is not in dispute. In the aforesaid circumstances, the dispute has been rightly ordered to be referred to the Arbitrator by the courts below. Impugned judgments of the courts below do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.

C.M. No. 19335-CII of 2013:

The instant application for interim stay is disposed of as infructuous.