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. 219 of 2023 & I.A. 3852 of 2023
Decided On : 10-03-2023
Arbitration - Appointment of Sole Arbitrator - The court appointed Justice R.S. Chauhan as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising under the Agreement executed in September, 2013 and the General Conditions of Contract (GCC).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for disputes arising from a contract executed in September, 2013 and the General Conditions of Contract (GCC). The late father of the petitioner completed the work, but the respondent withheld an amount and failed to release it despite numerous requests. The late father invoked the arbitration clause, and after his demise, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause again due to the respondent's inaction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found it appropriate to refer all disputes and disagreements between the parties to an independent Sole Arbitrator for adjudication. Justice R.S. Chauhan was appointed as the sole arbitrator, and the parties were directed to appear before the arbitrator within 10 days.
Issues: Disputes arising from the contract and GCC, withholding of payment by the respondent, invocation of arbitration clause, and appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes, ensuring compliance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and directing the parties to appear before the arbitrator within a specified timeframe.
Final Decision: Justice R.S. Chauhan was appointed as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes, and the petition was disposed of.
ORDER :
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes arising between the parties qua the Contract executed in September, 2013 and the General Conditions of Contract (GCC).
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the respondent vide agreement bearing no. 62/EE/PWD/CRMD M- 313/2013-14 awarded the work of “Improvement of drainage system Polo Road, Kalyan Vihar Road, and Vijay Nagar Road upto Najafgarh Drain” to the late father of the petitioner.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the stipulated date of initiation and completion of the said work was 13th October, 2013 and 10th April, 2014 respectively. It is further submitted that the late father of the petitioner completed the above-mentioned work on 6th April, 2015 and the final bill was paid by the respondent to the late father of the petitioner on 31st March, 2016.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent department withheld an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- vide CMB no. 868 on account of approval of some executed items of work by the higher authorities in the final bill.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that despite numerous request made by the late father of the petitioner, the respondent failed to release the abovementioned amount in favour of the late father of the petitioner.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the efforts to resolve the dispute amicably between the parties have failed. Being aggrieved thereof, the late father of the petitioner was constrained to invoke the arbitration clause as contained in the GCC, Clause 25 vide legal notice dated 11th December, 2019.
7. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in response to the said notice dated 11th December, 2019, the respondent admitted to the claim amount raised by the late father of the petitioner and stated that the same shall be released subsequent to the sanction of competent authority.
8. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the late father of the petitioner expired on 3rd March, 2020. It is further submitted that on account of COVID-19 lockdown, the matter could not be followed by the petitioner.
9. It is further submitted that on failure on part of the respondent department to take any action on the various requests raised by the petitioner, constrained the petitioner to invoke the arbitration clause again in accordance with Clause 25 of the GCC vide notice legal notice dated 13th September, 2022.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently opposed the averments made in the present petition, however, fairly conceded to the arbitral nature of disputes arising between the parties and has no objection if an independent Sole Arbitrator is appointed to adjudicate the disputes arising between the parties.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. As agreed on behalf of the parties, this Court finds it appropriate to refer all the disputes and disagreements between the parties to an independent Sole Arbitrator for their adjudication. Hence, the following order:
(i) Justice R.S. Chauhan, Former Chief Justice, Uttarakhand High Court is appointed as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties which have arisen under the Agreement executed in September, 2013 and the GCC;
(ii) The learned sole arbitrator, before entering the arbitration reference, shall ensure the compliance of Section 12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996;
(iii) The learned sole arbitrator shall be paid fees as prescribed under The Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators Fees)
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising under a contract, in accordance with the Arbitration and Concilia....
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 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 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.
The main legal point established is the arbitrability of disputes under the construction contract and the court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19....
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 confirmed the existence of an arbitration agreement and mandated the appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate contract disputes, highlighting the necessity of complying with contractu....
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.
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.