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.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1996") seeking redressal of disputes arising between the parties qua the General Conditions of Contract.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a registered Partnership Firm that offers its numerous services (often linked to energy) under contract to various organisations, including Ministries and Departments of the Government of India.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent invited tender for the execution of work named and styled as "OHE modification works in connection with (A) Removal of PSR-120 KMPH at Ballabhgarh (Delhi end) (B) Easing of turnouts at Tilak Bridge (C) Limited height subway at Km 68/3-4on ROK-ABO section of Delhi Division".

4. It is further submitted that the petitioner responded to the request for tender by submitting a bid for the project on 24thJuly, 2014 which was accepted by the respondent vide its letter of intent (LOI) No. 230-Elect/TRD/2011/1/(High Speed) dated 13thAugust, 2014, followed by a detailed acceptance letter dated 26thSeptember, 2014, on behalf of the President of India. The job had to be finished by 12th August, 2015 which was twelve months from the date of the letter of acceptance and an amount of Rs.1,96,60,213/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety Six Lakhs Sixty Thousand Two Hundred and Thirteen Only) was paid for executing the allotted work.

5. It is submitted that a formal contract was also executed between the petitioner and the respondent regarding the work in question, which among other things was governed by the General Conditions of the contract for the settlement of disputes by way of arbitration under clause 64 of the GCC 1999 as amended up to the date of invitation to tender.

6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that along with the tender as EMD, which was kept as ISD, the petitioner also submitted the TDA No. 026218 dated 22nd July, 2014 issued by State Bank of Patiala, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020 for an amount of Rs.2,42,500.00/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Five Hundred only). Additionally, as requested by the respondent, the petitioner also submitted the Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) bearing No. BG-03/2014-15 dated 8th September, 2014 for an amount of Rs.9,83,020/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand and Twenty only).

7. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as soon as the job was granted, the petitioner began making all the necessary arrangements to ensure that the work would be executed and completed within the allotted time frame. In a letter dated 17th February, 2015, the petitioner organised and submitted the materials for the execution of the works for inspection and approval. In accordance with the inspection notice dated 10th March, 2015, the materials were examined and deemed suitable for delivery to the site(s).

8. It is further submitted that around 25% of the work that was allotted was finished within the stipulated time, but the remaining work could not be done since there was no available location that could be used. In light of above, the petitioner requested an extension of time for the completion of the remaining work on the availability of the remaining site vide letter dated 1st October, 2015, after the stipulated time had passed. It is further submitted that construction was concluded on one of the sites at Tilak Bridge within the allotted time. The petitioner was notified in 2016 that the work was not necessary in the ROK-ABO Section of Delhi and furthermore, Ballabhgarh's location was not made accessible. Unfortunately, despite the extra time, the task could not be completed since the respondent was responsible for the site's unavailability. Thus, the petitioner vide letter dated 3rd February, 2017 requested an extension of tim