IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sachin Datta, J.
M/s Ranjit Construction Company – Appellant
Versus
Gujarat State Road & Building Department & Ors. – Respondents
Arb.P. 1252 of 2022
Decided On : 10-07-2023
Arbitration - Appointment of Sole Arbitrator - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Article 26, Article 27
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the appointment of an independent sole arbitrator to adjudicate a dispute arising from a tender process for a highway project in Gujarat. The respondents objected, stating that the petitioner had not complied with the conciliation process as required by the contract agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the conciliation process was not mandatory and that the petitioner's non-compliance did not bar them from invoking arbitration. The court appointed a Sole Arbitrator and allowed the respondents to raise preliminary objections regarding arbitrability/maintainability of the claims.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was required to exhaust the conciliation process before invoking arbitration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the conciliation process was not mandatory and that the petitioner's non-compliance did not prevent them from seeking arbitration. The court cited previous judgments to support this finding.
Final Decision: The court appointed a Sole Arbitrator and allowed the respondents to raise preliminary objections regarding arbitrability/maintainability of the claims.
JUDGMENT
Sachin Datta, J. The present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the "A&C Act") seeks appointment of an independent sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
2. The disputes between the parties have arisen in the context of a tender process initiated by the respondents for work of "Strengthening of Km. 572/000 to 609/000 (Tarsada-Kanja-Vyara-Kapura Section) of N.H.-56 in the State of Gujarat on EPC Mode". The petitioner submitted its bid for the work on 25.05.2021. The bid of the petitioner was found to be lowest and it was issued a Letter of Intent dated 03.07.2021. The petitioner was thereafter called upon to furnish Security Deposit and Performance Bond. The petitioner complied with the said requirements and the said work was consequently awarded in favour of the petitioner vide work order dated 02.08.2021. The stipulated period of completion of the work was nine months from the date of the work order and thus the work was required to be completed on or before 01.05.2022. The said work could not be completed within the stipulated time period. Consequently, certain disputes have arisen between the parties.
3. Article 26 of the contract agreement between the parties contains an arbitration clause in the following terms:
"Article 26
Dispute Resolution
26.1 Dispute Resolution
(i) Any dispute, difference or controversy of whatever nature howsoever arising under or out of or in relation to this Agreement (including its interpretation) between the Parties, and so notified in writing by either Party to the other Party (the "Dispute") shall, in the first instance, be attempted to be resolved amicably in accordance with the conciliation procedure set forth in Clause 26.2.
(ii) The Parties agree to use their best efforts for resolving all Disputes arising under or in respect of this Agreement promptly, equitably and in good faith, and further agree to provide each other with reasonable access during normal business hours to all non-privileged records, information and data pertaining to any Dispute.
26.2 Conciliation
In the event of any Dispute between the Parties, either Party may call upon the Authority's Engineer, or such other person as the Parties may mutually agree upon (the "Conciliator") to mediate and assist the Parties in arriving at an amicable settlement thereof. Failing mediation by the Conciliator or without the intervention of the Conciliator, either Party may require such Dispute to be referred to the Chairman of the Authority and the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Contractor for amicable settlement, and upon such reference, the said persons shall meet no later than 7 (seven) business days from the date of reference to discuss and attempt to amicably resolve the Dispute. If such meeting does not take place within the 30 (thirty) business day period or the Dispute is not amicably settled within 30 (thirty) days of the meeting or the Dispute is not resolved as evidenced by the signing of written terms of settlement within 30 (thirty) days of the notice in writing referred to in Clause 26.1.1 or such longer period as may be mutually agreed by the Parties, either Party may refer the Dispute to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of Clause 26.3 but before resorting to such arbitration, the parties agree to explore conciliation by the Conciliation Committees of Independent Experts set up by the Authority in accordance with the procedure decided by the panel of such experts and notified by the Authority on its website including its subsequent amendments. In the event of the conciliation proceedings being successful, the parties to the dispute would sign the written settlement agreement and the conciliators would authenticate the same. Such settlement agreement would then be binding on the parties in terms of Section 73 of the Arbitration Act. In case of failure of the conciliation process even at the level of the Conciliation Committee, either pa
Demarara Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Demerara Distilleries Ltd.
The conciliation process in the contract agreement was not mandatory, and non-compliance did not bar the petitioner from invoking arbitration.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of an independent sole arbitrator is necessary, and the refusal of the petitioner to participate in conciliation proceedings d....
The court affirmed that the inquiry under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act is restricted to the existence of an arbitration agreement, allowing disputes to proceed to arbitration without mandator....
The main legal point established is that invoking the conciliation clause as per the contract and the respondent's failure to respond allows the petitioner to seek the appointment of an Arbitrator un....
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 emphasized that objections of time-bar and prematurity cannot prevent the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal, and relied on precedents to appoint a Sole Arbitrator.
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.