Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by a party with a vested interest is improper and contradicts established legal principles regarding impartiality in arbitration.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. (Oral)--The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.

I.A. 12233/2021 (exemption)

2. Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Application is disposed of.

ARB.P. 922/2021 & I.A.12232/2021

3. The present petition has been filed by petitioner seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

4. Petitioner, a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, claims to be involved in the business of Facilities Management and Infrastructure Management Projects throughout India. Respondent is said to be a Special Purpose vehicle and a Joint Venture company of IRCON International Limited, a Government of India Undertaking, under the Ministry of Railways and Rail Land Development Authority incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.

5. According to petitioner, on 24.09.2019 the respondent issued Notice Inviting Tender No. IRSDC/HQ/ TENDER/2019/25/ SBC/ Parking issued by the Indian Railway Station Development Corporation for the project "Management of Parking Area at Bangalore Railway Station Along with Access Control for a period of 3 (Three) years" and petitioner submitted a bid thereto on 24.09.2020. Pursuant thereto, respondent invited petitioner to attend negotiation meeting on 13.11.2019 and after successful negotiations, respondent issued a Letter of Award bearing IRSDCIHQ/ TENDER/2019/25/SBC/Parking/1861 dated 14.11.19 in favour of petitioner for the said project, to which petitioner gave its Letter of Acceptance on 06.12.2019.

6. It is further averred on behalf of petitioner that in terms of aforesaid Letter of Award, petitioner is required to pay annual license fee of Rs.2,62.50,000/-which was duly deposited and also respondent was duly sent "Letter of Acceptance dated 16.11.2019" by the petitioner. Petitioner vide its letter dated 06.12.2019 also communicated the respondent about payment of first quarter of license fee and security deposit and acceptance of the project for period of three years. Further pleaded by petitioner that it sent an e-mail to the respondent informing that petitioner was ready to execute its part of obligation from 15.12.2019. However, despite visit by Director of petitioner from Hyderabad to New Delhi office of respondent on 05.12.2019 and 19.12.2019 for signing the Agreement, however, the agreement could not be signed on the pleas of respondent that the format of Agreement was not ready.

7. Thereafter, according to petitioner, a communication dated 24.01.2020, was received from respondent stating that temporary electricity connection was granted for the work and payment of Rs.500/-per day was required to be made in favour of Sr. Technical Manager/ Knight Frank, which the petitioner did and commenced the work. But even thereafter, the Agreement for the work could not be signed and Director of the Petitioner had to return empty hand back to Hyderabad, as authorized representative of respondent was said to be unavailable. The respondent vide its communication dated 18.03.2020 asked for present of Director of petitioner for the purpose of signing the Contract Agreement, however, due to Covid 19 pandemic and declaration of Janta Curfew by the Hon'ble Prime Minister from 22.03.2020, none on behalf of petitioner could reach the respondent to sign the Contract Agreement. In furtherance thereto, even respondent itself vide letter dated IRSDC/BLR/C/SBC/2020/0 192 dated 23.03.2020 issued an advisory with aspect to the closure of all commercial establishments at the KSR Bengaluru Railway Station till