Full Text
JUDGMENT
SURESH KHANNA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Bhupesh Narula, Adv.
Through Mr.Praveen Mahajan, Adv. with Mr.Shrey Raj Saxena, Adv.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, Suresh Khanna against the respondent, O.P.Suri Memorial Education Society (Regd.) only on five grounds. The same are reproduced here below:-
2. Along with the petition, the petitioner has filed letters dated 21st March, 2010, 9th May, 2012, 12th June, 2012 and 23rd June, 2012. In the letter dated 9th May, 2012 written by the petitioner to the respondent in furtherance of the letter dated 5th March, 2012 requesting the respondent for balance payable amount of `1,23,15,480/- to be released by the respondent as per agreement. It was also informed to the respondent that the said dues should be paid on or before 20th May, 2012 failing which the petitioner would nominate an Arbitrator who is a Retired Chief Engineer of Government Department at the risk and cost of the respondent. In the letter dated 12th June, 2012, again the request was made by the petitioner to the respodnent to release the amount due and also invoke clause of the appointment of Arbitrator and also asked the respondent to supply the copy of the agreement. In the letter dated 23rd June, 2012 it was reiterated that the said amount has not been released by the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the present petition is not maintainable, as there is no contract of arbitration between the parties. It is further stated by the counsel that the agreement dated 20th March, 2010 was entered into between the parties for the purpose of carrying on construction at the site. However, in the said agreement, nowhere it provides for arbitration clause for adjudication of the disputes between the parties. Thus, the petitioner has initiated the proceedings in order to harass the respondent. Copy of the agreement dated 20th March, 2010 entered into between the parties is enclosed with the reply as Annexure-1 which does not contain Arbitration Clause.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had some correspondence and relevant pages of agreement and his client would try to locate the same. The petitioner is also unable to explain to the Court that if the petitioner did not have copy of agreement which has an arbitration clause in para D of the petition from where the petitioner has extracted the Arbitration Clause as mentioned.
5. The petition itself lacks of details, thus, the prayer sought in the petition cannot be allowed. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to file the fresh petition as and when the petitioner is able to trace out the documents including the agreement or any communication exchanged between the parties which contain the reference of dispute adjudicate between the parties. The contention of the petitioner would be considered as per its own merit.
JUDGE MAY 02, 2013