A party cannot unilaterally appoint an arbitrator when disputes arise, as this infringes on unbiased adjudication rights, affirming established legal principles.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.

1. Petitioner- M/s BSCPL Infrastructure Ltd. has preferred the present petition under Section 11 sub-section (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to settle the disputes with respondents, as mentioned in Para-7 of the present petition. A direction is also sought to respondents to produce original Agreement dated 31.03.2017.

2. The crux of the case in hand, according to petitioner, is that on 15.02.2017, respondent No.1- Chief Engineer (AF) WAC invited applications from the Contractors for issue of tender for the work relating to "Resurfacing of Runway and Aircraft Operating Areas at AF Station Chandigarh" and vide letter dated 15.02.2017, authorized the petitioner to tender for the above work and thereafter, petitioner submitted the tender. Respondent No.1, Accepting Officer, for and on behalf of President of India, vide letter No.83022/CHD/283/E8 dated 31.03.2013 issued by their Chief Engineer, communicated the petitioner that its tender had been accepted for a contract sum of Rs.433,92,71,325.30. The period fixed for completion of the work was 28 months commencing from 05.04.2017 and ending with 04.08.2019.

3. In the meanwhile, the parties entered into amendment No.2, dated 29.03.2019 2019 to the aforesaid Agreement dated 31.03.2017 for referring the matters in dispute in the first place to the Dispute Resolution Board (DRB) by incorporating a Condition 50 "DISPUTE RESOLUTION BOARD (DRB)'" as part of Special Conditions. The Contract in Condition 70 of the General Conditions of Contract contained in I.A.F .W.-2249 provides for settlement of disputes by arbitration.

4. According to petitioner, upon receipt of the letter of acceptance dated 31.03.2017, petitioner mobilized its organization and deployed at site the necessary manpower, materials, machinery and other facilities and commenced the works so as to complete before the due date according to the contractual conditions. However, it was completed on 27.05.2020. But since respondent No.1 failed and neglected in releasing various amounts due for payment, petitioner referred such matters in dispute to Dispute Resolution Board for decision thereon.

5. The Dispute Resolution Board after hearing the parties rendered its decision on 05.02.2021. Being dissatisfied therewith, petitioner issued a notice under Clause 6(b) on page 29 of the Agreement read with Condition 70 of the General Conditions of Contract contained in I.A.F.W.-2249 and thereby referred the disputes for arbitration and requested the appointing authority, i.e. respondent No.2 for reference of the resultant disputes to arbitration and for appointment of a sole Arbitrator. Upon failure of respondent No.2 to appoint Arbitrator in terms of agreement within 30 days of petitioner's Notice dated 15.02.2021. Thus, petitioner has approached this Court seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the present dispute falling under Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

6. Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, has opposed the claim of petitioner while submitting that in terms of agreement between the parties, the Arbitrator has to be appointed by respondent No.2 and therefore, this petition be not allowed.

7. Both sides have been heard and record of this case has been perused.

8. Petitioner has invoked arbitration vide notice dated 15.02.2021. According to petitioner, the claim raised in the present petition is of approximately Rs.39,34,40,117.73 besides 18% per annum interest and cost of arbitration. The arbitration agreement between the parties and invocation of arbitration are n