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.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of Sole Arbitrator for redressal of disputes between the parties qua the Tender Agreement dated 25th February, 2016.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the respondent department has awarded the work pertaining to the "Construction of 419 Additional class rooms in existing premises under Jurisdiction of Zone-1 & 2 of DDE East (Priority-I) (SH: C/o SPS type Class Room, Labs and MP Hall i/c Internal & External Water Supply, Sanitary Installation and Electrical Installation, Development of Site and Fire Fighting System etc. in RS Kanya Vidyalaya Kondli GGSSS Vasundra Enclave and SKV No. 3 (Veer Udham Singh) Mandawli Delhi Package-3" for contractual amount to the tune of Rs.14,38,37,172/- to the Late father of the petitioner vide letter of acceptance of tender bearing no. 54(16)(Edu.)M.D./East & North-East/D.S./326 dated 25th February, 2016 and an agreement between the late father of the petitioner and the respondent was executed pertaining to the accomplishment of the said work.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf the petitioner that on 30th March, 2019, the respondent paid a gross sum of Rs.16,49,780/- against a bill bearing no. 10C for Rs.79,88,935/- that the petitioner's father had filed. The final bill, i.e. 10C submitted by the petitioner was not passed by the respondent, it instead prepared it on its own and passed it for comparatively less amount with an ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the respondent failed to explain why it did not cleared the 11th and final bill, which was submitted by the petitioner's father.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner's late father then issued a legal notice dated 29th October, 2019 to the Executive Engineer of the respondent, pursuant to the Clause 25 of the GCC. The Executive Engineer of the respondent denied the accusations in a reply to the notice that was delivered on 29th November, 2019.

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner's employee pursued the issue with the respondent's personnel, who promised to take it up with the petitioner. However, on failure on the part of respondent's personnel to take necessary action, the petitioner duly served the respondent's Chief Engineer with a legal notice pursuant to Clause 25 of GCC on 18th February, 2022. However, the petitioner's accusations have been refuted by the respondent, who issued their response on 23rd August, 2022.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that according to the Clause 25 of the GCC, the petitioner duly served the Chief Engineer of the respondent on 15th September, 2022, by sending legal notice through speed post on 17th September, 2022. On 2nd February, 2022, the respondent submitted a reply, rejecting the petitioner's allegations and requesting the submission of the succession certificate in order to move the matter further.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner requested the release of arrears of money through letters or notices dated 29th October, 2019, 12th December, 2019, 22nd October, 2020, 18th February, 2022 and 15th September, 2022, but the respondent failed to make the requested payment or name the arbitrator within the specified notice period, i.e. 30 days. As a result, the petitioner was forced to file the current petition.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently opposed the averments made in the present petition, however, fairly conceded that the dispute in question is arbitral in nature.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. As agreed on behalf of the parties, this Court finds