Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Prem Lal Singh Yadav - Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority & Anr. - Respondents
Arb.P. 1018/2021
Decided On : 18-11-2021
Arbitration - Appointment of Sole Arbitrator - Violation of Supreme Court dictum
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the appointment of a sole arbitrator under the provisions of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 due to disputes with the respondent regarding a maintenance work agreement. The respondent had appointed an arbitrator, which was found to be in violation of a Supreme Court dictum.
Finding of the Court:
The court observed that the respondent's appointment of an arbitrator was in violation of a Supreme Court dictum and appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
Issues: Appointment of Sole Arbitrator, Violation of Supreme Court dictum
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the respondent's appointment of an arbitrator was in violation of a Supreme Court dictum, leading to the appointment of a sole arbitrator by the court.
Final Decision: The court appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and disposed of the petition accordingly.
JUDGMENT
(Oral)
1. For adjudication of disputes with respondent, petitioner has filed the present petition under the provisions of Section 11of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of sole Arbitrator.
2. Pertinently, the case of the petitioner rests upon Agreement No. 10/EE/WD-13/DDA/11-12 dated 01-06-2011 entered with respondent for work “Maintenance of various colonies under Dwarka Zone Nazul Account II SH : Repair of interlocking paver blocks, providing fixing RCC slab manhole covers and cleaning desilting of drain along 30.00 mtr. wide R/W at Sector 23 Dwarka” for an estimated Cost Rs. 6,01,409/- and tendered cost Rs. 3,99,919/-, awarded on 31.05.2011, to be completed within a month.
3. According the petitioner, the aforesaid work was completed on 31.10.2011 within the stipulated period of one month, against which petitioner had raised bills. However, certain disputes arose between the parties and respondent vide its letter dated 17.01.2021 informed the petitioner that the work was not completed in a proper manner. The disputes were adjudicated by an Arbitrator and the Award was published on 29.04.2016, wherein claims of petitioner were dismissed, which was challenged under Section 34 of the Act. The said petition was allowed vide judgment dated 10.12.2020, in pursuance whereof, petitioner served a notice dated 11.01.2021 upon Engineer Member being persona designate for appointment of Arbitrator in terms specified in Agreement No. 10/EE/WD- 13/2010-11 executed on 01.06.2011, which provides for the settlement of disputes through Arbitration. Since the aforesaid notice remained unanswered by the respondent/DDA, petitioner has approached this Court seeking appointment of an Arbitrator.
4. At the hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/DDA has shared before this Court a letter dated 11.11.2021 written by Engineer Member, DDA to the petitioner informing appointment of Sh. Madhuresh Kumar, IRSE (Retd.) G.M. in East Central Railway sole Arbitrator regarding claims of petitioner.
5. At this stage, this Court has observed that appointment of Arbitrator by the respondent is in violation of dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC &Anr. vs. HSCC (India) Ltd. 2019 SCC Online SC 1517. However, learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is no objection to the appointment of Sh. Madhuresh Kumar as Arbitrator.
6. In view of the above, Sh. Madhuresh Kumar, IRSE (Retd.) Mobile: 7033110000, madhuresh51@gmail.com) is appointed sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
7. The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration. 8. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
9. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Arbitrator for information.
Appointment of a sole arbitrator must comply with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and should not be in violation of relevant legal precedents.
The court sanctioned the appointment of an Arbitrator despite procedural violations, highlighting the importance of adherence to statutory provisions while respecting the parties' agreements.
Disputes concerning contract completion and payment arise, necessitating arbitration as per 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 court affirmed that arbitration proceedings should be initiated to resolve disputes, even if a no-claim certificate is invoked, unless the claims are manifestly devoid of merit.
A party cannot unilaterally appoint an Arbitrator as it undermines unbiased dispute resolution; a collective agreement for a sole Arbitrator is essential.
The main legal point established is the necessity of appointing an independent arbitrator to resolve disputes, in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and rele....
Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.
A unilateral appointment of an arbitrator violates principles of unbiased dispute resolution. An arbitrator must be appointed consensually or by the court.
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is impermissible; parties must appoint an arbitrator jointly or seek court appointment to ensure unbiased dispute resolution.
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
