SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Del) 1808

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Valecha Engineering Limited - Appellant
Versus
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited - Respondent
Arbitration Petition No. 234 of 2020
Decided On : 15-01-2021

Advocates appeared:
Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, Abhishek Birthray, Advocate, Somya Budholia, Advocate, Prateek Seth, Advocate, Rajat Krishna, Advocate, Adeem Ahmed, Advocate, Prashant Mehta, Advocate, Neha Tanwar, Advocate

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 period.

Headnote:

Arbitration - Construction Contract - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6) - Clause 17.9 of the Agreement - [Construction Contract] - [Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11(6), Clause 17.9] - The court addressed the invocation of arbitration in a construction contract and the failure of the respondent to appoint an arbitrator within the stipulated time period, leading to the court's appointment of an arbitrator.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought arbitration under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, due to the respondent's failure to appoint an arbitrator within the stipulated time period after the petitioner invoked arbitration in a construction contract dispute.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent's failure to appoint an arbitrator within the stipulated time period resulted in the necessity of the court appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act.

Issues: The issues involved the respondent's failure to appoint an arbitrator within the stipulated time period and the petitioner's right to invoke Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent's failure to appoint an arbitrator within the stipulated time period led to the applicability of Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act, allowing the court to appoint an arbitrator.

Final Decision: The court appointed an arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes between the parties, directing the parties to contact the arbitrator within 48 hours of receipt of the judgment.

JUDGMENT

C Hari Shankar, J. - This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "1996 Act"), to refer certain disputes, which have arisen between the petitioner and the respondent, to arbitration.

2. Having heard Mr. Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent at length, I proceed to dispose of the present petition, the issue in the petition being limited.

3. Consequent to a letter of award, dated 30th November, 2011, a contract, for constructing underground link tunnel between the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and the Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, was awarded to the petitioner by the respondent.

4. The Agreement provided for resolution of disputes between the parties, initially, by conciliation and thereafter, on failure of conciliatory process, by arbitration. Clause 17.9 of the Agreement, which provided for arbitration, reads thus:

    "17.9. If the efforts to resolve all or any of the disputes through conciliation fails, then such disputes or differences, whatsoever arising between the parties, arising out of touching or relating to construction/manufacture, measuring operation or effect of the Contract or the breach thereof shall be referred to Arbitration in accordance with the following provisions.

      (a) Matters to be arbitrated upon shall be referred to a sole Arbitrator if the total value of the claims is upto Rs. 5 million and to a panel of three Arbitrators if total value of claims is more than Rs. 5 million. The Employer shall provide a panel of three arbitrators which may also include DMRC officers for the claims upto Rs. 5 million and a panel of five Arbitrators which may also include DMRC officers for claims of more than Rs. 5 million. The Contractor shall have to choose the sole Arbitrator from the panel of three and/or one Arbitrator from the panel of five in case three Arbitrators are to be appointed. The Employer shall also chose one Arbitrator from this panel of five and the two so chosen will choose the third arbitrator from the panel only. The Arbitrator(s) shall be appointed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of written notice/ demand of appointment of Arbitrator from either party. Neither party shall be limited in the proceedings before such arbitrators) to the evidence of arguments put before the Engineer for the purpose of obtaining his decision. No decision given by the Engineer in accordance with the foregoing provisions shall disqualify him from being called as a witness and giving evidence before the arbitrator(s) on any matter, whatsoever, relevant to dispute or difference referred to arbitrator/s. The arbitration proceedings shall be held in Delhi only. The language of proceedings, that of documents and communication shall be English.

        (b) The Employer at the time of offering the panel of Arbitrator(s) to be appointed as Arbitrator shall also supply the information with regard to the qualifications of the said Arbitrator nominated in the panel along with their professional experience, phone nos. and addresses to the contractor.

          (c) The award of the sole Arbitrator or the award by majority of three Arbitrators as the case may be shall be binding on all parties."

            (Emphasis supplied)

            5. According to the petitioner, failure, on the part of the respondent, to fulfil certain obligations, cast on it under the aforesaid contract, resulted in prejudice to the petitioner and delay in completion of the contract. The petitioner issued a notice of demand, to the respondent, on 23rd May, 2018, raising several demands, for being recompensed itself for losses suffered by the petitioner owing to alleged default on the part of the respondent.

            6. The communication also put the respondent on notice that in the event of default on the part of the respondent,
























                                  Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                                  1
                                  2
                                  3
                                  4
                                  5
                                  6
                                  7
                                  8
                                  9
                                  10
                                  11
                                  SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                                  supreme today icon
                                  logo-black

                                  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

                                  qr

                                  Scan Me!

                                  India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                                  For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                                  whatsapp-icon Back to top