SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 2058

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J.
Gupta Bros India – Appellant
Versus
The Press Trust of India Limited – Respondent
O.M.P.(T)(COMM.) 92 of 2022 & O.M.P.(MISC.) 16 of 2022
Decided On : 02-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. S.K. Maniktala, Mr. Udit Maniktala, Mr. Jatin Kumar, Mr. Kritik & Ms. Reshma, Advocates, for the Gupta Bros India.
Mr. Abhik Kumar, Ms. Shweta Kapoor & Mr. Aslam Ahmed, Advocates, for The Press Trust of India Limited.

Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is impermissible in law, and an independent arbitrator is required to be appointed.

Headnote:

Arbitration - Contract Agreement - Clause 82.1 - Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - TRF Limited vs. Energo Engineering Projects Limited, (2017) 8 SCC 377; Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. vs. HSCC (India) Ltd., (2020) 20 SCC 760; Bharat Broadband Network Limited vs. United Telecoms Limited, (2019) 5 SCC 755 - Unilateral appointment of arbitrator impermissible - Appointment of independent arbitrator required

Fact of the Case:

The case involves arbitration proceedings between The Press Trust of India Limited (PTI) and M/s Gupta Bros. (India) (GBI) under a Contract Agreement. GBI filed a petition for termination of the mandate of the arbitrator, while PTI filed a petition for extension of the mandate. The petitions were disposed of by a common judgment.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator by an officer of PTI, whether by the CAO or the CEO, is impermissible in law. The mandate of the arbitrator was terminated, and an independent arbitrator was required to be appointed.

Issues: The issues involved the validity of the appointment of the arbitrator and the permissibility of unilateral appointment of an arbitrator.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on judgments of the Supreme Court and Division Bench of the Court, which held that a person interested in the arbitration proceedings is neither entitled to act as an arbitrator nor entitled to appoint an arbitrator unilaterally. The court also emphasized the requirement for an independent arbitrator.

Final Decision: An independent arbitrator was appointed, and the arbitration proceedings were to be held under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, governed by its rules.

JUDGMENT

Prateek Jalan, J. (Oral)--These two petitions arise out of arbitration proceedings which are in progress between the parties under a Contract Agreement dated 07.07.2014 [hereinafter, "the Contract"] by which The Press Trust of India Limited [hereinafter, "PTI"] entrusted M/s Gupta Bros. (India) [hereinafter, "GBI"] with civil works at its office building in Jaipur.

2. GBI has filed O.M.P.(T)(COMM.) 92/2022 for termination of the mandate of the learned sole arbitrator and PTI has filed O.M.P.(MSIC.) 16/2022 for extension of the mandate. As the result of each petition is thus dependent on the result of the other, the petitions have been heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment.

O.M.P.(T)(COMM.) 92/2022

3. The Contract contains an arbitration clause [Clause 82.1]. The relevant part of the arbitration clause reads as follows:

    "82.1 Settlement of Disputes by Arbitration (other than mentioned in 82.2 below:

    Except where otherwise provided in the CONTRACT any question, dispute or difference that shall arise between OWNER on the one hand and the CONTRACTOR on the other hand as to the construction, intent, meaning or effect or the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, drawings, specifications, estimates or any one of them or as to any further DRAWINGS to be prepared or as to the application of the SCHEDULE OF RATES, to the measurements taken or as to the materials or the quality thereof or as to execute the same whether arising during the progress of WORK, or within six (6) months of completion or abandonment thereof or as to any matter o: thing, whether of the nature aforesaid or otherwise, however, arising out of or in any way relating to or connected with the CONTRACT then EVERY SUCH QUESTION, DISPUTE OR DIFFERENCE (except where otherwise herein expressly provided) shall be referred to a SOLE ARBITRATOR to be appointed by the parties by mutual consent within one (1) month from the date of notice of either partly requiring an arbitrator to be appointed or resolving such disputes. In the event of the parties being unable to agree to a sole arbitrator within the specified time, the sole arbitrator shall be appointed by the CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER of the OWNER within one (1) month from the date of request made to him in this behalf by either party. Such submission shall be deemed to be a submission to arbitration within the meaning of the INDIAN THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 or any statutory notification thereof." (Emphasis Supplied.)

4. Disputes having arisen between the parties, GBI invoked the arbitration clause by a communication dated 16.05.2018 addressed to the Chief Executive Officer [hereinafter, "CEO"] of PTI. As the parties to the Contract had failed to mutually agree upon the name of the sole arbitrator, GBI requested the CEO to act in terms of Clause 82.1 of the Contract.

5. A letter dated 13.06.2018 by the Chief Administrative Officer [hereinafter, "CAO"] of PTI addressed to the Managing Partner of GBI, stated as follows:

    "This is in response to and continuation of your letter dated May 16, 2018 to the Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Venky Venkatesh requesting for appointment of arbitrator in terms of clause 82.1 of the Works Contract for "Civil Structural, Architectural, Electrical Installations, Fire Protection/Detection Systems and Elevators Works" for the PTI office at Plot No. 5-B, Jhallan Doongri Institutional Area, Jaipur vide Letter of Award No. CAO-1057/14 dated June 16, 2014.

    I have been instructed to inform you that as per your abovesaid notice subsequent to invoking the `Arbitration', the matter is being referred to arbitration as mandated in the said clause. We hereby appoint Ms. Sangeeta Sondhi, Advocate, having her office at C-633, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate on the dispute in terms of the Works Contract. The date, time and venue of the arbitration proceedings shall be communicated by the arbitrator." (Emphasis Supplied.)

6. The learned arbitrator thereaft

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top