IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
M/s Space 4 Business Solution Pvt. – Appellant
Versus
District Election Officer North East & Anr. – Respondents
Arb.P. 211 of 2023
Decided On : 12-04-2023
Arbitration - Appointment of Sole Arbitrator - Dispute arising from Tender - The court appointed a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising from a tender for videography/photography/web-casting services for elections, and referred the matter to Arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a company engaged in event organization and printing services, was awarded a tender for videography/photography/web-casting services for elections. Disputes arose when the respondent failed to make payments for the services provided, leading the petitioner to invoke Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disputes were arbitrable in nature and should be referred to Arbitration by appointing a Sole Arbitrator. The court appointed Justice Pritam Pal, Former Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, as the Learned Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes.
Issues: The main issue was the alleged defaults of the respondent in making payments for the services provided by the petitioner, leading to the invocation of Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly clause 11(4) of the Agreement which stipulates that the parties may refer their disputes to Arbitration.
Final Decision: The court ordered the appointment of a Learned Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties and referred the matter to Arbitration, ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
ORDER
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The instant petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
"a. Appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate and resolve the disputes that have been arisen between the parties hereto in relation to matters covered by the aforesaid Tender.
b. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may kindly be granted in favour of the Petitioner.
c. Cost of proceedings may kindly be awarded in favour of the Petitioner and against the respondents."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 3588, Main Bazar, Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007 inter-alia engaged in the business of organizing events, providing various kinds of services, all kinds of printing, and providing of printing materials, the printing of banners, flex, etc.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relevant facts that led to this present petition are that, in 2019 respondent No. 1 floated a Tender ID 2019_REV_168705_1 with Tender No. F.6(290)SDM(EL)/DEO(NE)Videography/2019 for hiring of videography/photography/web-casting, etc. services which were to be deployed for conducting Lok Sabha Elections 2019 in the North-East District, New Delhi and, vide Order No. F.6(290)SDM(EL)/Videography/2019/3720-22 dated 3rd April 2019 the work was awarded to the petitioner.
4. It is submitted that the petitioner vide consent dated 15th January 2020 communicated its willingness to provide its services for Delhi Assemble Elections, 2020.
5. It is submitted that between 1st March 2020 till 26th June 2020, various invoices were raised by the petitioner to respondent No. 1 pertaining to INR 25,59,276 besides the EMD amount of INR 1,50,000 and performance security deposit of INR 3,50,000 for the services provided which were duly received and acknowledged by the respondents and, further submitted that it is pending with the respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the alleged defaults of respondent No. 1 to make the payments, the petitioner vide Legal Notice dated 20th January 2023 served and invoked Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and conveyed the same to respondent no. 1 vide speed post and email for referring the matter to Arbitration.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that clause 11(4) of the Agreement stipulates that the parties may refer their disputes to Arbitration.
8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents agreed with the prayer of the petitioner and consented to the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for adjudicating the aforementioned dispute.
9. On bare perusal of the facts of the case, it is observed by this Court that the dispute is arbitrable in nature and should be referred to Arbitration by appointing a Sole Arbitrator. In view of the request made by the petitioner, the said disputes and differences arising between the parties vide Order No. F.6(290)SDM(EL)/Videography/2019/3720-22 dated 3rd April 2019 are referred to Arbitration, by appointing an Arbitral Tribunal. Hence, the following Order:
ORDER
I. Justice Pritam Pal, Former Judge, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, is appointed as a Learned Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties which have arisen under Order No. F.6(290)SDM(EL)/Videography/2019/3720-22 dated 3rd April 2019.
II. The Learned Sole Arbitrator, before entering the Arbitration reference, shall ensure compliance of Section 12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996;
III. The Learned Sole Arbitrator shall be paid fees as prescribed under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators Fees) Rules, 2018 as amended vide notification dated 15th November 2022;
IV. At the first instance, the parties shall appear before t
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 court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
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 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 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 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....
Appointment of an arbitrator in instances where the respondent does not object to arbitration is valid under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing the importance of efficient dispute reso....
The court appointed an arbitrator to resolve disputes as per the arbitration clause in the agreement, emphasizing that the parties are bound to arbitrate their disagreements.
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....
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.