IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Sh Varun Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Through Cpwd & Ors. – Respondents
Arb.P. 1458 of 2022
Decided On : 27-02-2023
Arbitration - Appointment of Sole Arbitrator - The court appointed Justice Kailash Gambhir as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising under the Contract dated 3rd December, 2015.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for disputes arising from a General Conditions of Contract (GCC) executed on 3rd December, 2015. The petitioner alleged that the Department's arbitrary termination of the contract caused enormous loss.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disputes between the parties were arbitral in nature and appointed Justice Kailash Gambhir as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes.
Issues: Appointment of Sole Arbitrator, Compliance with Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Fee, First Instance Appearance, Open Contentions
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the agreement of the parties to refer the disputes to an Arbitral Tribunal and the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes under the Contract dated 3rd December, 2015.
Final Decision: The court appointed Justice Kailash Gambhir as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties, ensuring compliance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and prescribed arbitration fee rules.
ORDER
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of sole arbitrator for redressal of disputes arising between the parties qua the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) executed on 3rd December, 2015.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein was awarded the work namely "Face Lifting, Renovation and Upgradation of Bank of Baroda, New Delhi DG 2014-15 (SH: Removing of stone slab from cladding providing and fixing aluminium windows and exterior finishing") bearing agreement no. 62/EE/CD/2015-16, with the date of initiation as 13th December, 2015 and stipulated date of completion as 12th June, 2016.
3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the work was carried out in accordance with the terms of the contract with the intention of completing it within the specified time frame. However, due to the presence of several obstacles on site and the unavailability of the site, the work could not be completed within the specified time frame. The Department allegedly neglected to give the petitioner with the site and drawings in a timely manner. It is further submitted that the said hindrances were time and again brought to the notice of department via various communications, however, no action had been taken by the department to resolve the same.
4. It has been submitted that on 21st August, 2017, the petitioner herein filed a revised programme chart indicating therein the challenges and impediments on site and that with elimination of such impediments, the petitioner herein would finally be able to finish the work by 31st January, 2018.
5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Department did not remove the hindrances despite having been intimated. To the contrary, on 2nd May, 2018, by letter no. 54(BOB)/AB/C- Div/2018-19/1239, the Department terminated the contract without providing any justification. It is further submitted that such arbitrary and malafide determination of contract caused the petitioner enormous loss and the petitioner herein sent a demand notice to the Executive Engineer on 11th October, 2018 to settle the claims that arose due to malafide determination of contract but no action was taken within the prescribed time period. It has been submitted that owing to the Executive Engineer's refusal to reply to the demand letter and settlement of the claims, the petitioner contacted the Supervising Engineer on 11th March, 2018, who also remained non-responsive to the request made by the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that being aggrieved by the actions of the respondent, the petitioner was constrained to invoke the arbitration clause i.e., Clause 25 of the GCC vide Invocation-cum- Demand Notice dated 10th February, 2019 requesting the Chief Engineer to appoint an independent arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposed the averments made in the instant petition however has fairly conceded that the disputes between the parties are arbitral in nature and has no objection if the disputes are referred to a Sole Arbitrator.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. As agreed on behalf of the parties, this Court finds it evident to refer the disagreements between the parties to an Arbitral Tribunal by appointing a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes with respect to the GCC executed on 3rd December, 2015. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(i) Justice Kailash Gambhir (Former Judge, Delhi High Court) is appointed as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties which have arisen under the Contract dated 3rd December, 2015;
(ii) The learned sole arbitrator, before entering the arbitration reference, shall ensure the compliance
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 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 court affirmed that arbitration proceedings should be initiated to resolve disputes, even if a no-claim certificate is invoked, unless the claims are manifestly devoid of merit.
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 is the necessity of appointing an independent arbitrator to resolve disputes, in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and rele....
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 appointed a sole arbitrator to resolve contractual disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, affirming the parties' mutual agreement for arbitration.
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.
Court can appoint an arbitrator when both parties consent to arbitration for resolving disputes, even amidst contractual disagreements.
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.