Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Jagdish Chand Gupta – Appellant
Versus
NHPC Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to adjudicator's appointment. (Para 1) |
| 2. adjudicator's prior decision affects current appointment. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. jurisdictional challenge regarding arbitration venue. (Para 4) |
| 4. contractual mechanism for dispute resolution. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. levels of dispute resolution in contract outlined. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 6. petitioner's options for challenging adjudicator's decision. (Para 9) |
| 7. petition dismissed and not maintainable. (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (ORAL)--The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the impugned letter dated 24th June 2019, issued by Respondent No. 1- NHPC Ltd. (hereinafter "NHPC"), directing the appointment of Shri. H.L. Bajaj as the Adjudicator in respect of claims raised by NHPC for a sum of Rs.4.55 crores qua the Reconstruction of the permanent bridge over the River Jhelum at Bandi, Jammu and Kashmir.
2. The case of the Petitioner is that the appointed Adjudicator had earlier rejected the claim for compensation of the NHPC, and a second round of adjudication by the same Adjudicator is not permissible, under the terms of the contract entered into on 6th February 2006.
3. Mr. Anish Chawla, ld. coun
The court reaffirmed that contractual dispute resolution mechanisms should be utilized, disallowing jurisdiction under Article 227 unless there is a demonstrated case of perversity.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the detailed and exhaustive dispute resolution mechanism specified in the contract provides various options for the petitioner to exercise if ....
The court established that the jurisdiction for appointing an arbitrator is governed by the terms of the contract between the parties, and any deviation from those terms, including the applicable law....
The court established that disputes between government entities must be resolved under the statutory framework of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ensuring enforceability and legal clarity....
The appointment of an Arbitrator comes after the decision of the Adjudicator, and the Adjudicator and the Arbitrator are two distinct forums for dispute resolution under the contract.
![RATNA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PVT. LTD. VS MEJA URJA NIGAM PRIVATE LIMITED [MUNPL] - 2017 Supreme(Del) 1119](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Delhi_3.png)
The main legal point established is the applicability of the Act as amended with effect from 23rd October 2015 and the disqualification of the appointed Arbitrator under Section 12(5) of the Act.
The specified venue in an arbitration clause denotes the seat of arbitration, thus limiting jurisdiction to designated courts and excluding others.
A court can appoint an arbitrator when a party fails to do so despite repeated requests and after exhausting all pre-arbitration mechanisms.
The Adjudicator's decision is binding if not challenged within 28 days, emphasizing the enforceability of dispute resolution clauses in contracts.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
