IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Minesh Chopra - Appellant
Versus
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation - Respondent
O.M.P. (T) (Comm) No. 32 of 2021; I.A. No. 4372 of 2021, 4373 of 2021
Decided On : 23-03-2021
Arbitration & Conciliation Act - Termination of Arbitrator's Mandate - 1996 Act Section 14, 15 - 38. Conciliation and Arbitration - 64. Demand for Arbitration - 9.2. The rules of procedure for arbitration proceedings
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks termination of the mandate of the arbitrator and appointment of a substitute arbitrator under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The dispute arises from a parking site license agreement and the appointment of an arbitrator without consent.
Finding of the Court:
The court finds that the appointment of the substitute arbitrator without consent is illegal and in violation of the law. It holds that the arbitration agreement is sacrosanct and there can be no deviation from it.
Issues: The issues include the termination of the arbitrator's mandate, appointment of a substitute arbitrator, and the legality of the appointment without consent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision is influenced by the interpretation of the arbitration agreement, the principle that the arbitration agreement is sacrosanct, and the specific provisions for arbitration proceedings.
Final Decision: The court appoints a substitute arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes between the parties and allows the proceedings to continue from the current stage.
JUDGMENT
C. Hari Shankar, J. - This petition, under Section 14 and 15 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the 1996 Act") has been filed by the proprietor of M/s Milestone Security and Placement Services, seeking termination of the mandate of the learned arbitrator, presently arbitrating on the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, and appointment of a substitute arbitrator in his place.
2. The dispute emanates out of an agreement dated 8th July, 2014, whereby the petitioner was awarded the tender for operating the parking site at the Patel Chowk Metro Station. The petitioner was required to pay a monthly license fee of ? 5,54,000/-. It is asserted, in the petition, that, prior to expiry of the initial term of the license agreement on 15th July, 2017, the respondent requested the petitioner to continue running the parking sites till a new contractor would be appointed. The petitioner further asserts that the respondent defaulted in taking possession of the aforesaid parking sites from the petitioner and, rather, vide letter dated 19th April, 2018, enhanced the monthly license fees and parking charges, in violation of the license agreement. The petitioner protested against this action of the respondent, and reiterated its request to the respondent to take over the parking site.
3. The license agreement contains the following clause, governing resolution of disputes between the parties:
"38. Conciliation and Arbitration
In the event of dispute, difference of opinion or dispute or claim arising out of/ or relating to this agreement or breach, termination or the invalidity thereof, shall firstly be attempted to be settled by conciliation.
All disputes relating to this agreement or on any issue whether arising during the progress of the services or after the completion or abandonment thereof or any matter directly or indirectly connected with this service agreement shall in the first place be referred to a sole conciliator appointed/nominated by CGM/ Civil on receipt of such requests from either parties.
The conciliator shall make the settlement agreement after the parties reach agreement and shall give an authenticated copy thereof to each of the parties.
The settlement agreement shall be final and binding on the parties. The settlement agreement shall have the same status and effect of an arbitration award.
The views expressed or the suggestions made or the admissions made by either party in the course of conciliation proceedings shall not be introduced as evidence in any arbitration proceedings. Any dispute that cannot be settled through conciliation procedure shall be referred arbitration in accordance with the procedure given in Para given below.
The parties agree to comply with the awards resulting from arbitration and waive their rights to any form of appeal insofar as such waiver can validly be made.
Arbitration Procedure
If the efforts to resolve all or any of the disputes through conciliation fail, then such disputes shall be referred within 30 days to a sole arbitrator who would be nominated by DMRC Ltd. The venue of such arbitration shall be at Delhi/ New Delhi. The award of the sole arbitrator shall be binding on all parties. The cost of Arbitration shall be borne by respective parties. There will be no objection if conciliator/ or sole arbitrator nominated/ appointed is an employee of DMRC."
4. The respondent failed to take possession of the parking sites and, instead, appointed, vide communication dated 15th July, 2019, one Mr. S. Jethwani as the sole arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent. Consequent to the unfortunate demise of the said learned Arbitrator, the respondent, without consent of the petitioner, appointed one Mr. Mahesh Kumar Gupta as the substitute arbitrator in place of Mr. Jethwani. The petitioner objected to this appointment, stating that it was illegal, being unilateral in nature and in violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Perkin
Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. vs. United Telecom Ltd.
Central Organisation for Railway Electrification vs. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV)
The arbitration agreement is sacrosanct and must be adhered to without deviation.
Strict enforcement of arbitration agreement and the law does not permit either party to act as an arbitrator or appoint the arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes.
The court emphasized that the timeframe for appointing an arbitrator, as set in the agreement, is mandatory, and any deviation undermines the arbitration agreement's validity.
Delays in arbitration proceedings and failure to comply with the requirements of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can warrant the termination of an arbitrator's mandate.
The court emphasized the need to adhere to the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration Act in determining arbitrator's fees and highlighted the importance of avoiding delay in arbitration proceedings to p....
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.