IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Amazing India Contractors Private Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Indian Railway Stations Development Corporation Ltd. - Respondent
Arb.P. 923/2021
Decided On : 20-09-2021
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and appointed Mr. Justice (Retd) I.S.Mehta as the sole arbitrator.Issues:
Appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.Ratio Decidendi:
The party with an interest in the dispute's outcome should not have the power to appoint a sole arbitrator.Final Decision:
The court appointed Mr. Justice (Retd) I.S.Mehta as the sole arbitrator.JUDGMENT
(Oral)
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
I.A. 12235/2021 (exemption)
1. Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application is disposed of.
Arb. P. 923/2021 & I.A.12234/2021
3. The present petition has been filed by petitioner seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
4. Petitioner, a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, claims to be involved in the business of Facilities Management and Infrastructure Management Projects throughout India. Respondent is said to be a Special Purpose vehicle and a Joint Venture company of IRCON International Limited, a Government of India Undertaking, under the Ministry of Railways and Rail Land Development Authority incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
5. According to petitioner, on 09.09.2019 the respondent issued Notice Inviting Tender No. IRSD/HQ/TENDER/2019/21/SC/ Parking issued by the Indian Railway Station Development Corporation for the project "Management of Parking Area at Secunderabad Railway Station Along with Access Control for a period of 3 (Three) years" and petitioner submitted a bid thereto on 30.09.2019. Pursuant thereto, respondent invited petitioner to attend negotiation meeting on 30.10.2019 and after successful negotiations, respondent issued a Letter of Award bearing IRSDC/HQ/TENDER/ 2019/21/SC/Parking dated 08.11.2019 in favour of petitioner for the said project, to which petitioner gave its Letter of Acceptance on 16.11.2019.
6. It is further averred on behalf of petitioner that in terms of aforesaid Letter of Award, petitioner is required to pay annual license fee of Rs. 1,70,00,000/- which was duly deposited and also respondent was duly sent “Letter of Acceptance dated 16.11.2019” by the petitioner. Petitioner vide its letter dated 06.12.2019 also communicated the respondent about payment of first quarter of license fee and security deposit and acceptance of the project for period of three years. Further pleaded by petitioner that it sent an e-mail to the respondent informing that petitioner was ready to execute its part of obligation from 17.12.2019. However, despite visit by Director of petitioner from Hyderabad to New Delhi office of respondent on 05.12.2019 and 19.12.2019 for signing the Agreement, however, the agreement could not be signed on the plea of respondent that the format of Agreement was not ready. Once again, Director of the Petitioner visit the respondent’s office but he had to return empty hand back to Hyderabad, as authorized representative of respondent was said to be unavailable and the Agreement for the work could not be signed.
7. The respondent vide its communication dated 18.03.2020 asked for present of Director of petitioner for the purpose of signing the Contract Agreement, however, due to Covid 19 pandemic and declaration of Janta Curfew by the Hon’ble Prime Minister from 22.03.2020, none on behalf of petitioner could reach the respondent to sign the Contract Agreement. It is averred on behalf of petitioner that due to Covid pandemic and phrased lockdown, it became difficult for petitioner’s representative/Director to reach Delhi to sign the Agreement.
8. Further, it is averred that since petitioner did not hear anything from respondent regarding reopening after the lockdown period was over, the Director of petitioner sent an email dated 25.05.2020 to the respondent and thereafter, re-opened the parking services at Secunderabad Railway Station on 01.06.2020. Petitioner’s Director thereafter sent another mail dated 01.06.2020 to the respondent intimating that some illegal persons have been running parking and issuing receipts in the name of petitioner and petitioner is not responsible for such activities. After further communications dated 02 and 03 of June, 2020 gave authorization in favour of Mr. Rupesh Kumar and restarted operations at the parking from 06.06.2020 with a pro-rata licensee fee of 10%
: In cases where one party has a right to appoint a sole arbitrator, its choice will always have an element of exclusivity in determining or charting the course for dispute resolution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of an Arbitrator must comply with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the choice of the Arbitrator must not ha....
The necessity for mutual agreement in appointing a sole arbitrator is critical to uphold fairness in arbitration processes, emphasizing the exclusivity of choice and impartiality in dispute resolutio....
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by a party with a vested interest is improper and contradicts established legal principles regarding impartiality in arbitration.
Point of Law : Whatever advantage a party may derive by nominating an arbitrator of its choice would get counter balanced by equal power with the other party. But, in a case where only one party has ....
The Managing Director cannot arbitrarily appoint an arbitrator if their interest affects impartiality; such appointments contravene Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act.
Whatever advantage a party may derive by nominating an arbitrator of its choice would get counter balanced by equal power with the other party. But, in a case where only one party has a right to appo....
Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - In cases where one party has a right to appoint a sole arbitrator, its choice will always has an element of exclusivity in determining or charting course for....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusivity of the right to appoint a sole arbitrator when one party has such a right, as per the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The unilateral appointment of an arbitrator violates the principle of unbiased adjudication, requiring mutual agreement between parties for such appointments.
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.