Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Rajendra Mittal Construction Co Pvt Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
NCML Batala Pvt Ltd - Respondent
Arbitration Petition No. 1092 of 2021
Decided On : 09-12-2021
Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - The court allowed the petition and appointed a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties in accordance with the Arbitration Clause forming a part of the Contract.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was awarded construction works but the respondent failed to provide necessary support, leading to termination of the contract and invocation of arbitration.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and appointed a sole Arbitrator with the consent of both parties.
Issues: Appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Ratio Decidendi: The court appointed a sole Arbitrator in accordance with the Arbitration Clause forming a part of the Contract, and the arbitration will be conducted under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and Mr. Justice (Retd.) J.R. Midha was appointed as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
JUDGMENT
Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The present petition has been filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of Arbitrator on behalf of respondent to adjudicate the disputes with respondent.
2. Petitioner was awarded construction of civil and associated works for proposed Silos Complex at Batala by respondent vide Tender document bearing No.NCML/BATALA/CIVIL/2017-18/04 dated 28.02.2018 and subsequently through a Contract Agreement dated 14.05.2018, 30.08.2019 and 08.09.2020 to be completed in a time frame of 8 months. Respondent ARB.P. 1092/2021 failed to provide land and other miscellaneous support, due to which the petitioner was unable to execute the work, therefore, the project is running onto its 40th Month.
3. According to petitioner, due to failure of the obligations of respondent, petitioner issued the Termination Notice cum Notice invoking Arbitration dated 30.09.2021 whereby the petitioner terminated the Contract and nominated its Arbitrator, namely,. Justice S.P. Garg, (Retd.) and upon receipt of the said notice, respondent replied vide its reply dated 28.10.2021 refuting the contentions of the petitioner, however, in its reply neither respondent denied the existence of the Arbitration Agreement nor nominated its Arbitrator. Therefore, the present petition has been filed by petitioner to nominate Arbitrator on part of respondent in terms of Clause 62 ("Arbitration Clause") forming a part of the Contract dated 14.05.2018 as executed between the parties.
4. During hearing, learned counsel for petitioner prays that sole Arbitrator may be appointed through DIAC to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
5. Learned counsel for respondent has not objected to the appointment of sole Arbitrator for adjudication of dispute between the parties.
6. In view of the above and with the consent of parties, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, Mr. Justice (Retd.) J.R. Midha (Mobile: 9717495003) is appointed sole Arbitrator in this petition to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
7. The arbitration shall be conducted under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The fee of the Arbitrator shall be in accordance with the schedule of fees prescribed under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators Fees) Rules, 2018.
8. The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.
9. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Arbitrator for information.
The court has the authority to appoint a sole Arbitrator in accordance with the Arbitration Clause forming a part of the Contract.
The non-contestation of an Arbitration Agreement obligation permits the court to appoint a sole Arbitrator when both parties consent.
The court has the authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when the parties fail to agree on the appointment.
The court's power to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the arbitrability of disputes under the agreement's Clause 25.
The court affirmed that when parties acknowledge disputes in a contractual agreement, an arbitrator must be appointed to resolve these disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
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 decision emphasized the appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate the disputes between the parti....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint an arbitrator to resolve disputed claims between parties in accordance with Section 11(6) of the Arbitration an....
Court has the discretion to appoint a new Arbitrator to continue unresolved arbitration proceedings, affirming continuity even after the previous Arbitrator's death.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
