High Court Of Delhi
AKSHAYA JAIN - Appellant
Versus
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA - Respondent
A.A. 97 of 2000
Decided On : 08/10/2000
( 1 ) THIS is an arbitration petition, on behalf of the petitioner, under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the act ) seeking the appointment of an arbitrator.
( 2 ) THE petitioner s case is as follows:- (a) The petitioner is a firm of Architects and Interior Design Consultants. The respondent is the Airports Authority of India. A design competition was held for the work of construction of a Civil Aviation Training Centre at Bamrauli, Allahabad. After being successful in the design competition, the petitioner entered into an Agreement on 20th November, 1989 with the respondent (which was formerly known as National Airports Authority of India and is now known as Airports Authority of India) for the construction of a Civil Aviation Centre at Bamrauli. The petitioner was to provide architectural and engineering services as per the said Agreement. The petitioner was able to complete the work with due diligence on 30th April, 1997 and the said project was awarded JITA Award-1999 for "excellence in Architecture" by the Indian Institute of Architects. Despite the aforesaid award and completion of work the respondent failed to release the dues to the petitioner and wrongly withheld the amounts due to the petitioner. It is. the case of the petitioner that even though the bills of the petitioner were to be settled within six months from the completion, the bills were not so settled. The petitioner addressed several letters to the respondent for payment of its dues and settlement of its pending bills but there was no response from the respondent though verbal assurance were given to the petitioner. Finally the petitioner issued a letter dated 26. 5. 1999 calling upon the respondent to clear the dues of the petitioner within one month failing which the petitioner stated that it would invoke the arbitration clause. There was no response to the said letter dated 26. 5. 1999 and petitioner sent another letter dated 5th July, 1999 calling upon the respondent to appoint within 30 days the Sole Arbitrator in terms of the Agreement between the parties. The arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties reads as follows:-
"12. Arbitration: In case of any dispute arising out of this agreement, the same will be referred to the Sole Arbitrator to be appointed in writing by the Chairman, National Airports Authority. The decision of the Chairman, National Airports Authority will be final and binding for all matters arising out of this agreement. However, the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 will apply to such proceedings. "
( 3 ) BY its letter dated 28th July, 1999, the respondent did not release any payment to the petitioner demanded in the letter dated 26th May, 1999 and failed to appoint the Arbitrator. Significantly the letter of the respondent dated 28. 7. 1999 did not even refer to the petitioner s letter dated 5. 7. 99 relating to the demand for appointment of an arbitrator within 30 days. Thereafter several reminders were given to the respondent to appoint the arbitrator but no action was taken by the respondent to do so. Following the letter of the respondent dated 28th July, 1999, the petitioner sent a reply on 28th September, 1999 replying to the averments of the respondent in the said letter dated 28th July, l999 reiterating the delay in processing and clearing their bills. On l2th October, 1999 the petitioner sent another letter to the respondent reiterating the quest lor appointment a Sole Arbitrator within 30 days which request was first made on 5th July, 1999. There was no response to the said letter. Another reminder was sent on 26. 11. 1999 again reiterating the demand for an appointment of an Arbitrator within thirty days made on 5th July, 1999 and no reply was received even to the said letter. Thereafter having waited for a period of about 5 months, the present petition was Filed. By this said petition appointment of an independent arbitrator prefe
Delhi Development Authority v. Kochhar Construction Work
G. Ramachandra Reddy and Co. v. Chief Engineer Madras Zone, Military Engineering Service
International Security and Intelligence Agency Ltd. v. MCD.
Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd.
Meryfur Industries Ltd. v. Union of India
Mohinder Kumar Jain v. Beas Construction Board and Anr.
Nandyal Co operative Spinning Mills Ltd. v. K. V. Mohan Rao
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.