IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
M/s Kgl Infrastructures - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
Arbitration Petition No. 982 of 2021
Decided On : 21-12-2021
Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - The court allowed the petition and appointed a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, with the fee of the Arbitrator governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in construction, sought the appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate disputes with the respondent related to a railway contract.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the petition, appointing a sole Arbitrator and directing compliance with Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.
Issues: Appointment of Arbitrator, Arbitrability of Disputes
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the disputes were arbitrable and appointed a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the same.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and Mr. Rakesh Khanna was appointed as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, with the fee governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
JUDGMENT
Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of Arbitrator on behalf of respondent to adjudicate the disputes with respondent. Pertinently, petitioner is a partnership firm and is engaged in the business of construction and undertakes railway contracts.
2. According to petitioner, it was awarded work for providing of limited height sub way in place of U/M L-xing no.35 at km. 38/4-4, 37 at km.40/4-5 and 39 at km. 41/5-6 under railway track between KEX-BTU section on DSA-SMQL section under ADEN/SMQL vide acceptance letter dated 30.05.2017 for Rs.4,73,51,203/- and stipulated date of completion of work was 6 months i.e. 30.11.2017. All arrangements were made for execution of work but due to late sanctioning of block for placing of pre casted RCC boxes, substantial increase in the scope of work, late decisions, increase in cost, non-availability of funds, late sanctioning of Addendum & Corrigendum, the work was extended upto 29.02.2020.
3. Thereafter, petitioner reminded the concerned department about the preparation of final bill but it kept on evading on one pretext or the other. Petitioner again made several requests to consider making payments qua the items not paid in the final bill but the same did not fetch any result.
4. According to petitioner, due to failure of the obligations of respondent, petitioner issued letter dated 02.08.2021 invoking Arbitration as contained under clause 64 of the General conditions of the Contract, calling upon the respondent to make the payment of the claims of the petitioner and constitute the Arbitration Tribunal. In response thereto, respondent asked for a waiver under section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Hence, the present petition has been filed.
5. During hearing, learned counsel for petitioner prays that sole Arbitrator may be appointed to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
6. Learned counsel for respondent has objected to the averments made in the present petition however, has submitted that the disputes are arbitrable.
7. In view of the above the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, Mr.Rakesh Khanna, Senior Advocate (Mobile: 9810021863) is appointed sole Arbitrator in this petition to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
8. The fee of the learned Arbitrator shall be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
9. The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.
10. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Arbitrator for information.
The court's decision emphasized the appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court upheld the arbitrability of disputes arising from contractual obligations, appointing a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The court's decision emphasizes the validity of invoking arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause of the work order and the importance of compliance with Section 12 of the Arbitration an....
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between parties under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court applied the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint a sole arbitrator and ensure compliance before commencing the arbitration.
The main legal point established is the arbitrability of disputes under the construction contract and the court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19....
No single party can be permitted to unilaterally appoint the Arbitrator, as it would defeat the purpose of unbiased adjudication of dispute between parties.
The court's authority to appoint an arbitrator in cases where the parties are unable to agree, in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the provisions of the Arbitration & Concil....
The court has the authority to appoint a sole Arbitrator in accordance with the Arbitration Clause forming a part of the Contract.
Arbitration Agreement - Appointment of - The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.
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.