IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
Janta Associates & Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Indian Oil Foundation & Anr. - Respondents
Arb. P. 792 of 2020 & I.A. 1807 of 2021
Decided On : 06-10-2022
Arbitration - Appointment of Sole Arbitrator - Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - A&C Act - Clause 9.0.1.1 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 11 of the A&C Act seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator in a dispute arising from a construction project contract. The petitioner claimed that the respondents caused delays, destruction of cofferdam, and refused to pay for additional works.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Final Bill had not been finalized, and the determination of Notified Claims had not been made. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's claims as Notified Claims within two weeks. The petitioner was allowed to invoke arbitration for claims included as Notified Claims in the Final Bill.
Issues: Premature arbitration notice, determination of Notified Claims, refusal to pay for additional works, termination of contract
Ratio Decidendi: Disputes arising from Notified Claims in the Final Bill are required to be referred to arbitration. The determination of Notified Claims must be made before invoking arbitration. The petitioner is entitled to avail remedies for claims not included as Notified Claims.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with the direction for the respondents to consider the petitioner's claims as Notified Claims within two weeks. The petitioner was allowed to invoke arbitration for claims included as Notified Claims in the Final Bill.
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. - The petitioner (hereafter 'JACL') has filed the present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the A&C Act') praying that a sole arbitrator be appointed in accordance with Clause 9.0.1.1 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC).
Factual Matrix
2. Respondent no.1 (hereafter 'IOF') appointed respondent no.2 (hereafter 'EIL') as the Engineering Project Construction Management (EPCM) to complete the work of developing infrastructure facilities at Khajekhalan Ghat, Patna Sahib, Patna (hereafter 'the Project'). Thereafter, EIL issued an Open Tender Notice dated 14.06.2018, inviting e-bids for execution of the Project.
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid tender notice, JACL submitted its bid for the contract to execute the Project. JACL's bid was the lowest (L1) and was accepted in terms of the Letter of Acceptance (LoA) dated 13.09.2018. Thereafter, on 10.10.2018, the parties entered into an agreement (hereafter 'the Contract'). The Project was to be completed within a period of twelve months from the date of issuance of the LoA, that is, on or before 13.09.2019.
4. The Project, inter alia, entailed construction of the staircase area, which included the foundation of the staircase that was to be made below the river water level. This required building a cofferdam to prevent the water from entering the area where the construction work was to be done.
5. JACL, inter alia, claims that the respondents provided them with the structural designs and drawings for the construction of the cofferdam. The design provided was of a sandbag design cofferdam that was 0.5 meters above water level with no wall covering on the downstream side of the cofferdam.
6. JACL claims that it followed the respondents' instructions and design and made the cofferdam accordingly. However, the design was not based on sound engineering principles and was not in conformity with the standard industrial practice of using sheet pile cofferdam for alluvial river beds where discharge is unpredictable.
7. On 12.04.2019, due to heavy rainfall, there was heavy flow of water leading to a rise in the water level of the river Ganga, which resulted in the destruction of the cofferdam. Additionally, machines and equipment in the surrounding area were damaged or washed away in the river. JACL claims that it suffered losses due to this and the respondents did not reimburse them for such losses.
8. Thereafter, to make the site ready for the Project again, there was a need for dewatering of the site. JACL was granted permission for the same. JACL claims that the respondents were aware of the fact that dewatering and removal of debris were not covered under the insurance policy, as they had approved the policy. JACL claims that notwithstanding the same, the respondents refused to pay for the dewatering and related works after the same were completed. Resultantly, JACL had to bear the expenses.
9. Subsequently, a new cofferdam was required to be constructed. JACL contends that the respondents denied its suggestions to make the new cofferdam by sheet piling method or raise the height of the sandbag cofferdam to at least one meter above water level. The only change allowed was the addition of a wall on the downstream side of the cofferdam. On 04.05.2019, due to an increase in the water level, the cofferdam was again destroyed.
10. On 21.08.2019, JACL raised the Fifth Running Account (RA) Bill to the respondents for the work completed by them. On the instruction of the respondents, this bill was revised and sent to the respondents by an e-mail dated 27.08.2019. JACL claims that the respondents refused payment of the bill and denied the existence of any such claim due to JACL.
11. Thereafter, the respondents, through letters/notices dated 06.01.2020, 13.01.2020, 28.01.2020, threatened to terminate the Contract due to inaction and delay in completion of the Project on the part of JACL.
12. On 07.02.2020, a meeting was held between the
Disputes arising from Notified Claims in the Final Bill are required to be referred to arbitration, and the determination of Notified Claims must be made before invoking arbitration.
The claims were notified within the stipulated period and submitted along with the final bill in accordance with Clause 6.6.3.0 of the GCC, making the disputes arbitrable under Clause 9.1.0.0.
(1) Arbitration – Parties to arbitration agreement have autonomy to decide not only on procedural law to be followed but also substantive law – A party cannot claim anything more than what is covered....
The main legal point established is that disputes can be arbitrable despite fraud allegations, and the court has the authority to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from a const....
The main legal point established is that a party to a contract cannot absolve its liabilities and must comply with dispute resolution clauses, and claims must be within the period of limitation.
The court affirmed that interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act requires clear evidence of potential non-payment, which was lacking, supporting the validity of the show cause notice aga....
Interim measures, etc. by courts - Ex-parte stay and Show Cause Notice - No valid ground to interdict respondents from considering show cause notice and taking an informed decision with regard to con....
Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - Court is not required to examine any other contentious issues regarding the disputes between the parties at the stage of referring the parties to arbitration....
The court held that the validity of claims and the arbitrability of related disputes must be referred to arbitration, rejecting the respondent's claims of non-compliance with contractual protocols li....
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.