IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
M/s Space Business Solution Pvt. – Appellant
Versus
Department of Transport Through Its Secretary Cum Commissioner & Anr. – Respondents
Arb.P. 1308 of 2022
Decided On : 21-02-2023
Arbitration - Tender Agreement - The court appointed a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising from the Tender Agreement under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a private limited company, sought the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to resolve disputes arising from a Tender Agreement with the respondent no. 1.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disputes between the parties were arbitral in nature and appointed a Sole Arbitrator from the panel of arbitrators at the Delhi International Arbitration Centre to adjudicate the disputes.
Issues: The main issue was the non-payment of outstanding invoices by the respondent despite the completion of the project by the petitioner, leading to the invocation of the arbitration clause in the Tender Agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the consent of both parties for the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator and the arbitration clause in the Tender Agreement, which provided for the resolution of disputes through arbitration in case amicable settlement failed.
Final Decision: The court directed the Delhi International Arbitration Centre to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes, ensuring compliance with necessary disclosure and fee regulations, and scheduled a hearing for the parties to appear before the Coordinator of the Centre.
ORDER
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)
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 a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes arising between the parties qua the Tender Agreement.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a private limited company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 3588, Main Bazar, Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007. It is further submitted that the petitioner is involved in the business of organising events, offering a variety of services i.e., all kinds of printing, and providing of printing materials, printing of banners flex and other things.
3. It is submitted on behalf petitioner that in order to choose a vendor to issue show-cause notices, suspension orders, return of suspended licences, issuance of enforcement notices and challans in the transport department of the government of the NCT of Delhi in 2018, the respondent no. 1 floated a tender bearing tender ID DC/OPS/TPT/2018/02.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner submitted its bids in the aforementioned tender and was thereby declared a successful bidder. Consequently, the petitioner was awarded said job vide Job Order no. DC/OPS/TPT/2014/3152-55 dated 31st July, 2018. It is further submitted that the project was completed effectively, and the petitioner raised and filed invoices totalling to Rs. 8,99,987/-.
5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner did not receive payment for the aforementioned outstanding invoices despite numerous verbal requests, visits and written reminders. It is further submitted that the respondents have not sent any communication regarding the payments to the petitioner towards the aforementioned bills. In addition to the EMD amount of Rs. 60,000/- and security amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- the aforementioned sum of Rs. 8,99,987/- is still outstanding with the office of respondents.
6. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has made numerous attempts to resolve the issue of pending payment through mutual discussions with the officers involved from the respondents department. It is further submitted that since all the efforts to resolve the dispute amicably have failed, thus, the petitioner was constrained to invoke the arbitration clause i.e., Condition 11 of the Tender Agreement vide notice dated 21st October, 2021. The said arbitration clause, i.e., Condition 11 of the Tender Agreement is reproduced hereunder:
"All disputes or differences arising out of or in connection with the Contract shall be settled by bilateral discussions. Any dispute, disagreement or question arising out of or relating to the Contract or relating to construction or performance, which cannot be settled amicably, may be resolved through arbitration. In the event of any dispute or difference arising out of or in any way relating to or concerning these presents or effects of these presents, the same shall be referred to the sole arbitration of a person to be appointed by the Commissioner (Transport), Government of NCT of Delhi. Any litigation arising out of this contract shall be filed only in the Courts at Delhi, India."
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the averments made in the instant petition, however, fairly conceded that the dispute arising between the parties is arbitral in nature, thus, has no objection if this Court appoints a Sole Arbitrator in order to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. As agreed on behalf of the parties, it is evident that the parties intend for this Court to refer the disputes to arbitration by appointing a Sole Arbitrator. In view of the request made by the parties, to resolve the disputes arising under the
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 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 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 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 in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between parties when there is an agreement to refer the disputes to arbit....
The court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court's decision emphasized the arbitrability of disputes and the appointment of a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to refer disputes to arbitration when both parties have invoked the arbitration clause and there are admitted arbitral disput....
The court appointed a sole arbitrator to resolve contractual disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, affirming the parties' mutual agreement for arbitration.
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.