Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Sh. Siddhant Shangle - Petitioner
Versus
Govt Of NCT Of Delhi - Respondent
ARB.P. 218 of 2023
Decided On : 10-03-2023
Arbitration - Appointment of Sole Arbitrator - The court appointed a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties under the Tender Agreement dated 25th February, 2016.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for redressal of disputes arising from a Tender Agreement. The respondent department had awarded a construction work contract to the petitioner's late father, but disputes arose regarding the payment and clearance of bills.
Finding of the Court:
The court found it appropriate to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to refer all the disagreements between the parties for their redressal. Justice R.S. Chauhan, Former Chief Justice, Uttarakhand High Court, was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator.
Issues: The main issue was the dispute between the parties arising from the construction work contract and the non-clearance of bills by the respondent department.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the need for arbitration to resolve the disputes between the parties as agreed upon by both parties. The appointment of a Sole Arbitrator was deemed appropriate to adjudicate the disagreements.
Final Decision: The court appointed Justice R.S. Chauhan as the Sole Arbitrator, directed compliance with Section 12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and instructed the parties to appear before the arbitrator within 10 days. The petition was disposed of.
ORDER :
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
1. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of Sole Arbitrator for redressal of disputes between the parties qua the Tender Agreement dated 25th February, 2016.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the respondent department has awarded the work pertaining to the “Construction of 419 Additional class rooms in existing premises under Jurisdiction of Zone-1 & 2 of DDE East (Priority-I) (SH: C/o SPS type Class Room, Labs and MP Hall i/c Internal & External Water Supply, Sanitary Installation and Electrical Installation, Development of Site and Fire Fighting System etc. in RS Kanya Vidyalaya Kondli GGSSS Vasundra Enclave and SKV No. 3 (Veer Udham Singh) Mandawli Delhi Package-3” for contractual amount to the tune of Rs. 14,38,37,172/- to the Late father of the petitioner vide letter of acceptance of tender bearing no. 54(16)(Edu.)M.D./East & North-East/D.S./326 dated 25th February, 2016 and an agreement between the late father of the petitioner and the respondent was executed pertaining to the accomplishment of the said work.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf the petitioner that on 30th March, 2019, the respondent paid a gross sum of Rs. 16,49,780/- against a bill bearing no. 10C for Rs. 79,88,935/- that the petitioner's father had filed. The final bill, i.e. 10C submitted by the petitioner was not passed by the respondent, it instead prepared it on its own and passed it for comparatively less amount with an ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the respondent failed to explain why it did not cleared the 11th and final bill, which was submitted by the petitioner's father.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner's late father then issued a legal notice dated 29th October, 2019 to the Executive Engineer of the respondent, pursuant to the Clause 25 of the GCC. The Executive Engineer of the respondent denied the accusations in a reply to the notice that was delivered on 29th November, 2019.
5. It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner's employee pursued the issue with the respondent's personnel, who promised to take it up with the petitioner. However, on failure on the part of respondent's personnel to take necessary action, the petitioner duly served the respondent's Chief Engineer with a legal notice pursuant to Clause 25 of GCC on 18th February, 2022. However, the petitioner's accusations have been refuted by the respondent, who issued their response on 23rd August, 2022.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that according to the Clause 25 of the GCC, the petitioner duly served the Chief Engineer of the respondent on 15th September, 2022, by sending legal notice through speed post on 17th September, 2022. On 2nd February, 2022, the respondent submitted a reply, rejecting the petitioner's allegations and requesting the submission of the succession certificate in order to move the matter further.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner requested the release of arrears of money through letters or notices dated 29th October, 2019, 12th December, 2019, 22nd October, 2020, 18th February, 2022 and 15th September, 2022, but the respondent failed to make the requested payment or name the arbitrator within the specified notice period, i.e. 30 days. As a result, the petitioner was forced to file the current petition.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently opposed the averments made in the present petition, however, fairly conceded that the dispute in question is arbitral in nature.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. As agreed on behalf of the parties, this Court finds it appropriate to
The main legal point established is the court's authority to appoint a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to resolve disputes between parties as agreed upo....
The main legal principle established is the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to resolve disputes arising from a Tender Agreement.
The main legal principle established is the enforceability of arbitration clauses in contracts and the court's authority to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to resolve disputes in accordance with the Arbitr....
The court has the authority to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from a contract, ensuring compliance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The court's decision emphasized the arbitrability of disputes and the appointment of a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court appointed a sole arbitrator to resolve contractual disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, affirming the parties' mutual agreement for arbitration.
The court appointed a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes under a tender agreement after the respondent failed to respond to the arbitration notice, confirming necessity when an arbitration clause is....
The court affirmed that the disputes between the parties were arbitral in nature and appointed a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint a Sole Arbitrator and refer disputes arising from a tender to Arbitration in accordance with the provisions of....
The main legal point established is the court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes in accordance with the arbitration clause under the General Conditions of Contract.
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
