IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C.Hari Shankar, J.
N.N. Buildcon Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Hscc(india) Private Limited & Anr. - Respondents
Arbitration Petition No. 180 of 2021
Decided On : 11-11-2021
Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Section 11(6))
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the appointment of an arbitrator to arbitrate on disputes arising from an agreement for construction of a hostel between the petitioner and Respondent 1, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). The respondents failed to respond to communications and the Disputes Redressal Committee (DRC) allegedly failed to take a decision within the prescribed period.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the existence of a dispute was clearly established and deemed it appropriate to refer the matter to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) to appoint a suitable arbitrator to arbitrate on the dispute. The arbitration would take place under the aegis of the DIAC and would abide by its rules and regulations.
Issues: Appointment of arbitrator, non-responsiveness of the respondents, failure of the DRC to take a decision within the prescribed period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the arbitration clause in the contract between the parties and the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to refer the matter to the DIAC for the appointment of a suitable arbitrator.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with the direction to refer the matter to the DIAC for the appointment of a suitable arbitrator.
JUDGMENT
C. Hari Shankar, J. - This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the 1996 Act"), seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes between the parties.
2. Notice was issued in this petition on 3rd February, 2021. Respondent 2 appeared on 4th May, 2021. Thereafter, there has been no appearance on behalf of Respondent 2. Respondent 1 has been served, by all modes including dasti. Respondent 1, however, did not appear before the Court on any of the dates of hearing.
3. No counter-affidavit has been filed, in response to the petition.
4. As such, I have heard Mr. Vineet Jhanji, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and proceeded to dispose of the petition.
5. The dispute arises out of an agreement dated 29th August, 2016, between the petitioner and Respondent 1. Respondent 1 executed the agreement on behalf Respondent 2, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). Mr. Jhanji has pointed out that, in the agreement, "Department" is defined as AIIMS, New Delhi/HSCC. As such, the petition has been filed arraigning HSCC as well as AIIMS as Respondents 1 and 2, respectively.
6. The petitioner was engaged by Respondent 1 for construction of a hostel in the premises of AIIMS, vide agreement dated 29th August, 2016. The plaintiff alleges that there had been defaults in payment, by the respondents, of the final bill raised by the plaintiff.
7. The agreement between the petitioner and the respondents provided, in Clause 25, thus :-
"CLAUSE 25
SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES & ARBITRATION
Except where otherwise provided in the contract, all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, design, drawings and instructions here-in before mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the contract, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions, orders or these conditions or otherwise concerning the works or the execution or failure to execute the same whether arising during the progress of the work or after the cancellation, termination, completion or abandonment thereof shall be dealt with as mentioned hereinafter:
(i) If the contractor considers any work demanded of him to be outside the requirements of the contract, or disputes any drawings, record or decision given in writing by the Engineer-in-Charge on any matter in connection with or arising out of the contract or carrying out of the work, to be unacceptable, he shall promptly within 15 days request the authority as indicated in Schedule 'F' (Reviewing Authority) in writing for written instruction or decision. Thereupon, the Reviewing Authority shall give his written instructions or decision within a period of one month from the receipt of the contractor's letter.
If the Reviewing Authority fails to give his instructions or decision in writing within the aforesaid period or if the contractor is dissatisfied with the instructions or decision of the Reviewing Authority, the contractor may, within 15 days of the receipt of Reviewing Authorities decision, appeal to the authority as indicated in Schedule 'F' (Appealing Authority) who shall afford an opportunity to the contractor to be heard, if the latter so desires, and to offer evidence in support of his appeal. The Appealing Authority shall give his decision within 30 days of receipt of contractor's appeal.
If the contractor is dissatisfied with the decision of the Appealing Authority, the contractor may within 30 days from the receipt of the Appealing Authoritys decision, appeal before the Dispute Redressal Committee (DRC) along with a list of disputes with amounts claimed in respect of each such dispute and giving reference to the rejection of his disputes by the Appealing Authority. The Dispute Redressal Committee (DRC) shall give his decision within a period of 90 days from the receipt of Contractor's appeal. The
Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. vs. United Telecoms Ltd. (2019) 5 SCC 755
Haryana Space Application Centre vs. Pan India Consultants Pvt Ltd. (2021) 3 SCC 103
TRF Limited vs. Energo Engg. Projects Limited (2017) 8 SCC 377
The main legal point established is the court's authority to refer arbitration matters to an appropriate arbitration center for the appointment of a suitable arbitrator, in accordance with the provis....
The absence of respondents in an arbitration matter can lead to an assumption of the petitioner's claims as admitted, allowing the court to appoint an arbitrator.
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....
In proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court is only required to satisfy itself prima facie as to the existence of an arbitration agreement; all other ques....
The main legal point established is the applicability of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in cases where a party fails to appoint an arbitrator within the stipulated time ....
The Court emphasized the principle of 'when in doubt, do refer' and left the issues of limitation and compliance with the procedure for DRC under Clause 25 for consideration by the arbitrator.
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.