Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Yfc Projects Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Ramprastha Promoters And Developers Private Limited - Respondent
Arbitration Petition No. 222 of 2022, Miscellaneous Application No. 2992 of 2022
Decided On : 23-02-2022
Arbitration - Appointment of Sole Arbitrator - Summary: The court allowed the petition and appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitration will be conducted under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and the arbitrator's fee will be in accordance with the Schedule of Fees prescribed under the DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators Fees) Rules, 2018.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a construction company, sought the appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, due to disputes with the respondent, a real estate developer, regarding unpaid bills and contractual obligations.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The arbitration will be conducted under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), and the arbitrator's fee will be in accordance with the Schedule of Fees prescribed under the DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators Fees) Rules, 2018.
Issues: The issues involved the non-payment of bills by the respondent, disputes arising from the contract, and the invocation of arbitration by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the arbitrability of the disputes and the appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Final Decision: The court appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and disposed of the petition accordingly.
JUDGMENT
Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 (6) of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 seeking appointment of sole arbitrator.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is a company and is engaged in business of construction and other development activities. Respondent is a non-government company and is a real estate developer running its business operation in NCR region. Respondent during year 2010 obtained licence bearing No.40 of 2010 for development of group housing society admeasuring 24.53 acres in sector 95 (in short 'Project'). Further, respondent informed the petitioner that it had sold the FSI of the Project to the army Welfare Housing Organization (aWHO). as per the terms and conditions entered between the aWHO and respondent, the development rights were given to the respondent for construction of Multi Storied Residential Towers and other related work for personal use of member/allottees of aWHO. Respondent in furtherance of the contracts which it had entered with aWHO, issued a letter of intent dated 25.05.2013 in favour of petitioner for execution of certain Civil & Structural Work for a contract price of Rs.80,00,00,000/- in the Project. However, later certain additional works were also awarded to petitioner relating to internal Electrical, Sanitary & Plumbing work through a letter of intent on 10.06.2013 for a total amount of Rs.19,50,00,000/- and for installation of aluminium sub frames vide Work Order dated 12.07.2014 which was costing around Rs. 41,65,000/-. Since the commencement of work in May 2013, the petitioner faced issues resulting from the lackadaisical attitude of the respondent. There were no proper instructions with respect to the construction activity and the respondent even had constant conflict with aWHO, which resulted in termination of contract by aWHO with respondent. In spite of satisfactory performance of work in accordance with the drawing and data provided by the respondent, there was considerable delay in the payments.
3. Petitioner further clams that in the year 2016 was informed by respondent that further construction under the contract will not continue, on account of certain disputes which arose between the respondent and aWHO. Thereafter, with mutual consent it was decided that the contract shall stand discharged and the petitioner shall submit final bills for the work done and all payments due towards the pending bills shall be cleared by the respondents. Thereafter, in May 2016, the final bills were also submitted by the petitioner for the work done, which is also acknowledged by the respondent. as such till date a principal amount of Rs. 5,22,97,877/- is still due and payable by the respondent in favour of the petitioner. However, despite the respondent's admitted liability the bills submitted by the petitioner remains unpaid till date. Since the respondent failed to make payment of the above stated liability, petitioner issued a demand notice dated 14.08.2018 demanding payment of the principal amount of Rs. 5,22,97,877/- along with 18 % interest. However, respondent vide its reply dated 23.08.2018 denied its liability and admitted the factum of dispute between the parties and placed reliance on Clause 69 of the Contract agreement dated 25.05.2013 and claimed invocation of arbitration. Consequently, petitioner by its legal notice dated 31.12.2021 invoked arbitration which was served upon respondent vide email dated 31.12.2021, however, respondent did not respond. Thereafter, again a reminder notice dated 14.01.2022 was served upon the respondent and despite that, there was no response from respondent. Hence, the present petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for respondent has entered appearance on advance notice and submitted that though the claims raised in the present petition are disputes, however disputes are arbitrable and Sole arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate the dispute between the
The main legal point established in the judgment is the appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate the disputes between the parti....
Disputes arising from a construction contract for unpaid dues are arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, prompting the appointment of a sole arbitrator.
The unilateral appointment of an arbitrator violates the principle of unbiased adjudication, requiring mutual agreement between parties for such appointments.
The court has the authority to appoint a sole Arbitrator in accordance with the Arbitration Clause forming a part of the Contract.
The main legal point established is the court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator when the parties fail to appoint one themselves, as provided under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliatio....
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is impermissible; parties must appoint an arbitrator jointly or seek court appointment to ensure unbiased dispute resolution.
The court has the authority to appoint an arbitrator to resolve disputes based on the arbitration clause in the agreement and the arbitrability of the disputes.
Party no objection if sole Arbitrator is appointed by this Court for adjudication of dispute between the parties.
The court's decision emphasized the appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The main legal point established is the court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 when the parties fail to mutually appoint one,....
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
