Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
M/s Aee Engineeers And Contactors & Anr. - Appellantss
Versus
Ignou Through Its Vice Chancellor - Respondent
Arbitration Petition No. 1093 of 2021
Decided On : 12-01-2022
Arbitration - Appointment of Sole Arbitrator - The court allowed the petition under Section 11(6) of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 and appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a proprietorship firm, sought the appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes with the respondent regarding non-payment for work executed by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent failed to oppose the petition and, therefore, allowed the appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes.
Issues: Non-payment for work executed, invocation of arbitration clause, and appointment of sole arbitrator.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the respondent's failure to oppose the petition and the petitioner's invocation of the arbitration clause in the agreement.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
JUDGMENT
Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 seeking appointment of sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties.
2. Petitioner No.1 is the proprietorship firm of petitioner No.2 and is engaged in the business of supply and maintenance of electrical jobs etc.
3. as per the averments made in the present petition, respondent awarded the work of operation of 5 Electric Sub-Station Equipment installed in ESS-1 2, 4,5 & 10 at IGNOU Campus, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi vide letter for commencement No.IG/ CMD/ EE/ 2015-16/ 1552 dated 18.11.2015 after conveying acceptance of his quotation vide letter No.IG/CMD/EE(E)/2015-16/1549 dated 17.11.2015. Subsequently, agreement No.IG/CMD/EE(E)/WO/2015-16 dated 19.11.2015 was executed between the parties. Contract was further extended several times, However, when petitioners raised the bills from time to time for the work executed by it, the respondent failed to make payment. The payments towards bills dated 23.04.2018 and 21.06.2018 are still due. ESI and PF reimbursement towards bills dated 01.11.2017, 23.04.2018 and 21.06.2018 amounting to Rs. 63 Lakhs are also due. Petitioners requested for the release of amount of their bills to respondent several times through various communications including Letter dated 21.06.2018, e-mails dated 04.08.2018 as well as by letter dated 06.01.2020 to EE (E) and other Officers to release due payments but respondents failed to make the said payments. Thereafter, disputes arose between the parties.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners served a notice dated 09.04.2021 upon respondent invoking arbitration in terms of Clause 10 of the agreement, however, respondent failed to do so. Hence, the present petition has been filed.
5. On 02.12.2021, notice was issued to respondent and as per office report, respondent is served, however, none has appeared on its behalf. It seems that respondent has nothing to oppose in the present petition.
6. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. accordingly, Mr. P.C. Ranga, DHJS (Retd.) (Mobile:9868905228) is appointed sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
7. The fee of the learned arbitrator shall be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996.
8. The learned arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.
9. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.
10. a copy of this order be sent to the learned arbitrator for information.
The court's decision highlights the importance of honoring arbitration clauses in agreements and the appointment of arbitrators to resolve disputes.
Non-compliance by a party allows the court to appoint a sole Arbitrator under the Arbitration Act when arbitration notices are ignored.
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,....
The court's decision emphasized the appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of consent and lack of objection from both parties in appointing a sole arbitrator.
The court's decision emphasizes the validity of invoking arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause of the work order and the importance of compliance with Section 12 of the Arbitration an....
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....
The court can appoint an Arbitrator when parties fail to mutually agree, as per agreement provisions and arbitration law.
Court can appoint an arbitrator when both parties consent to arbitration for resolving disputes, even amidst contractual disagreements.
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
