SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Del) 534

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Odeon Builders Pvt Limited - Appellant
Versus
Engineers India Limited - Respondent
Arbitration Petition No. 247 of 2020; Interlocutory Application No. 5884 of 2020, 5885 of 2020, 5886 of 2020
Decided On : 01-10-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Vinay Kumar Garg, Advocate, Karunesh Tandon, Advocate, Chandra Shekhar Goswami, Advocate, Mayur Singhal, Advocate, Pawas Kulshrestha, Advocate, Parv Garg, Advocate, Navin Kumar, Advocate, Rashmeet Kaur, Advocate, Arpana Majumdar, Advocate, Sunny Priyadarshi, Advocate

Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

Headnote:

ARBITRATION - Appointment of Arbitrator - Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Petitioner seeks appointment of an arbitrator on behalf of the respondent Engineers India Ltd. (EIL) - Chronology of facts and legal provisions examined - Held, EIL was the only party who can legally be "sued" under Section 11(6) - Petitioner was a stranger to the contract between NII and EIL - Only contract in which petitioner was a party is the contract dated 11th July, 2011, in which, as per definition, the other party was EIL and not RCB - Proceedings initiated by the petitioner against EIL are entirely competent - Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.C. Chopra appointed as petitioner's arbitrator - Mr. R.V. Easwar appointed as respondent's arbitrator - Both arbitrators to appoint presiding arbitrator in accordance with Clause 83.3.1 of the GCC.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner seeks appointment of an arbitrator on behalf of respondent Engineers India Ltd. (EIL) - Chronology of facts and legal provisions examined.

Finding of the Court:

EIL was the only party who can legally be "sued" under Section 11(6) - Petitioner was a stranger to the contract between NII and EIL - Only contract in which petitioner was a party is the contract dated 11th July, 2011, in which, as per definition, the other party was EIL and not RCB - Proceedings initiated by the petitioner against EIL are entirely competent.

Issues: None

Ratio Decidendi: Arbitration agreement is an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not - Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 empowers the court to appoint an arbitrator where a party fails to appoint an arbitrator within 30 days from the receipt of a request to do so from the other party.

Final Decision: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.C. Chopra appointed as petitioner's arbitrator - Mr. R.V. Easwar appointed as respondent's arbitrator - Both arbitrators to appoint presiding arbitrator in accordance with Clause 83.3.1 of the GCC.

JUDGMENT

C. Hari Shankar, J. - The petitioner seeks, by this petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1996 Act"), the appointment of an arbitrator, on behalf of the respondent Engineers India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "EIL").

2. Before proceeding to examine the issue, a chronological recapitulation of the facts, to the extent necessary, may be beneficial.

3. On 20th August, 2010, a contract was executed, between the National Institute of Immunology (NII) and EIL. The NII acted, in the said contract, on behalf of itself, the RCB and the Translational Health Science and Technology Institute (THSTI). The contract noted the fact that the NII owned a site, where, by a Memorandum of Understanding dated 7th July, 2010, between the NII, RCB and THSTI, it had been decided to establish a Biotech Science Cluster (BSC) Campus. It was also observed, in the said contract that NII had selected EIL to provide Project Management Consultancy (PMC) services, as specified in the contract.

4. Annexure I to the contract set out the scope of services of EIL and the obligations of the owner (i.e. NII) thereunder. Annexure I-2 thereunder, provided for the responsibilities of EIL. Mr. Navin Kumar has relied on sub-clause (f) of Clause 1 of the said Annexure, whereas Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, had placed reliance on Clauses (f), (g), (h) and (o) thereof. These clauses may be reproduced thus:

"f. EIL shall sign agreements with Contractors on behalf of the OWNER.

g. EIL shall give periodically (but not later than once in a quarter) copies of the expenditure certified by a representative of EIL on the project, for reimbursement of expenditure incurred from the funds advanced to EIL. On completion of the work, the accounts of the work shall be closed and a final statement shall be submitted for settlement, along with refund of excess deposit received, if any, audited by EIL''s in-house Chartered Accountant. Owner reserves the right to get the work and payments made checked and audited by its own officers or an independent government private Agency.

h. The payments by the Owner shall be made by transfer of funds in a bank account to be opened in any of the Nationalized Banks/State Bank in the name of "EIL BSC account".

x x x

o. EIL shall be fully responsible to defend suits or arbitration cases arising out of the project in connection with their own work between EIL & Contractor(s). All such arbitrations shall be decided by a sole arbitrator appointed by the appropriate authority of EIL out of the names of the arbitrators approved by the OWNER. Provision for this arrangement shall be made in the Construction agreement stipulating that Arbitrator shall give reasons for his award if a claim of any party exceeds Rs. One Lakh."

5. In March, 2011, bids were invited, by EIL, for civil, structural, electrical and other developmental works for the construction of the campus of Phase 1 of the Bio-Tech Science Cluster at Faridabad. Clause 1.1 of the Notice Inviting Bid (NIB) stated that EIL had been appointed as the Project Management Consultant (PMC), on behalf of the Bio-Tech Science Cluster for the implementation of the work. Vide Clause 1.2, EIL, on behalf of RCB, invited bids for civil, structural, electrical and other developmental works for construction of the Campus of Bio-Tech Science Cluster at Faridabad. The general covenants of the NIB were contained in the various sub-clauses of Clause 7.0 thereof. EIL reserved, under Clause 7.2, the right to complete evaluation of the comparative evaluation of the bidders, based on the details in the bid without seeking any additional information. Clause 7.4 reserved, with EIL, the right to assess the bidders'' capability and capacity to execute the work using inhouse information. Clause 7.5 stipulated that the complete bidding document was available on the website of EIL as well as of RCB. Clause 7.6 st

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top