← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaARB/280/2016disposed of

M/S G.R.Associates v. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Ludhiana And ORS

2017-08-04Mr. Justice M.M. Aggarwal5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Arbitration Case No.280 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.08.2017 M/s G.R.Associates through its partner Sh.Ranjit Singh .....Petitioner versus Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and another .....Respondents  

   Present :

Mr. P.S.Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. D.S.Sobti, Advocate, for the respondents. ****      

     

    

  

    



   

 

        

  "

#  $

 

   %     &       

            



   '

 ( # )  

 

    *   

 

   

  

              $



    (+ +

+(  ,$  

  + 

+   )



)



    

  )    

   

     



  

 

       

 $            $ + -   

 $   $  

   

 .

  ) - / 0

(. +. !   $   

       $       

+

+.

 #  

 

)

1

     

            

          

     

        

 

   

         !    "#       

               



     

 



      

    

          

      

  

       !   

  

  

"

           

  (+ +(

+.   2 $   

  $  $ )

* 

 (+ 

+ 

) 2  

            $      

    

 )   5

 & 

)

    

        

  



 

  65      

            



  ! "

#

$$ %

% &'  

 

(

&  )*+-   )



   $

    

# 

    

7$)   

    

 

 % ) 

  

 $    

    )

 

 % 5  *  . 

5 

,

$    

-"   .

/+(   ) 

 

 #  ) $



0 (.    " The facts in brief are: the appellant, EngineerinChief, had entered into a contract agreement with the respondent/contractor. The

 contract was completed on 2092002. A final bill was prepared, settling all claims, by the respondent and was forwarded to the appellants. The respondent after receiving payment of final bill signed the same, without any protest or reservation on 2732001. Again after two years, the respondent submitted a list of twenty claims to the appellants. The appellants in their reply stated that as per Condition 65 of IAFW 2249 (General Conditions of Contract) forming part of CA, no further claim shall be made by the contractor after submission of the final bill and the claim now submitted are deemed to have been waived and extinguished. The respondent then approached the Engineerin Chief for appointment of the arbitrator on 1782003. The appellants did not appoint an arbitrator as no dispute existed.

 The learned counsel for the appellants would contend, that the final bill of the work was signed by the applicant on 21122000 and the payment for the same was made to the applicant on 2732001. The applicant signed the final bill and nofurtherclaim certificate was also signed without any reservation and also got the payment of final bill by signing the same without any protest." 333.(emphasis supplied).

  $ 

  )       7

90 :

     ' 

 $ )  :

           $   

 



 % )  

  0

. ;    

      $

     5 



  7 

        $  1 $ # $  )

 $ ) 

    

    )

 

$  )

 #,

$    

-"0

 6 <           ) 

 $   $ 7

0 :

    % )  0

. ;    

   $

         $    

  # 

         $  % = > ;  =  



   

    

       The fees shall be as per the Chandigarh Arbitration Centre (CAC) (Administrative Cost and Arbitrator's Fees) Rules, 2014. The venue of the arbitration shall be the Chandigarh Arbitration Centre. 

     ) Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No