Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 2290
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Lakhvinder Singh Prop. of M/s Lakhvinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Northen Railway – Respondent
Arb.P. 9 of 2023
Decided On : 08-02-2023
Mr. Arun Bata, Ms. Indira Marla and Mr. Abdul Wahid, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Sarvan Kumar, Mr. Vikrant, Ms. Sunita Shukla and Mr. Venugopal Abhay, Advocates, for the Respondent.
The Court emphasized the importance of arbitration clauses in contracts and the need for compliance with arbitration procedures under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Headnote:
Arbitration - Parking Agreement Dispute - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a parking contractor, sought the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding a dispute arising from a Parking Agreement with a Government agency responsible for railway maintenance and operations.
Finding of the Court:
The Court appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties as per the parking agreement, and directed compliance with Section 12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitrator was instructed to ensure compliance with the prescribed fees and the parties were required to appear before the arbitrator within 10 days.
Issues: Dispute over parking agreement, refusal to nominate arbitrator, and unlawful closure of entry/exit gate.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found the dispute to be arbitral in nature and appointed a sole arbitrator to resolve the issues as per the arbitration clause in the parking agreement.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with the appointment of a sole arbitrator and directions for compliance with arbitration procedures.
ORDER
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)
1. The instant petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under the provision of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1996") qua the dispute arising out of the Parking Agreement dated 10th June, 2022.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a parking contractor that operates a number of pay-per-use parking lots in the Delhi NCR region.
3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that respondent is a Government agency in-charge of Northern Railway's Delhi Division's maintenance and train operations, among other things.
4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent issued a request for proposals for the Delhi Sadar Bazar (DSB) Cycle - Scooter - Car -Bus -Truck -temporary parking Site for a duration of three years. According to clause 6(b) of Chapter 5 of the Tender Document, the Parking Site was proposed for a bid.
5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner submitted a bid for Rs. 4,76,17,500/- (Rupees Four Crores Seventy Six Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Only) for a term of three years after touring the parking site, reviewing the site map posted with the tender, and evaluating the viability of the parking site. It has been further submitted that the petitioner was declared the successful bidder for a period of three years, and therefore was obligated to pay the quarterly licence fee to the tune of Rs. 39,68,125/- (Rupees Thirty-Nine Lakhs Sixty-Eight Thousand One Hundred And Twenty-Five Only) and a monthly licence fee of Rs. 13,22,808/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Eight). In addition to the aforementioned license fee, the petitioner owed the respondent relevant taxes, namely GST at 18% and TCS at 2%.
6. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that an Offer Letter No. 23AC/393/C-S-C-T-T/Pkg/E- Tender/DSB/2022 dated 19th April, 2022 was issued to the petitioner demanding the payment of quarterly licence fee of Rs. 39,68,125/-, GST of Rs. 7,14,263/-, TCS of Rs.79,363/- and security deposit of Rs.70,05,450/- within a stipulated time frame of 15 days.
7. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that pursuant to the completion of all the formalities, the petitioner deposited Rs. 39,68,125/- (Rupees Thirty-Nine Lakhs Sixty-Eight Thousand One Hundred And Twenty-Five Only) towards three months advance quarter licence fee via letter dated 26th April, 2022. Additionally, the petitioner deposited sum of Rs. 70,05,450/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs Five Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty) in fixed deposit after deducting Rs. 9,30,800 /- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Thirty Thousand and Eight Hundred) which was already paid as EMD while bidding for the tender. A receipt for a fixed deposit for the amount of Rs. 70,05,450/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs Five Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty) was also submitted with the respondent by letter dated 2nd May, 2022. Consequently, the petitioner had fulfilled all the procedures as required in the Offer Letter dated 19th April, 2022 within the respondent's specified time limit.
8. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that possession of the parking site was transferred to the petitioner via joint note dated 11th May, 2022. After the parking lot was turned over to the petitioner, he requested water and electricity connections from the respondent.
9. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner received a Show Cause Notice dated 9th June, 2022 bearing number 23AC/393/C-S-C-T-T/Pkg/E-Tender/DSB/2022, which was issued in furtherance of a surprise inspection purportedly performed on 8th June, 2022, less than a month after the parking space was given over to the petitioner. It is further submitted that in the aforementioned Show Cause Notice, false and unfounded allegations were alleged against
