SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Rajendra Mittal Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
NCML Batala Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
Arb.P. 1092 of 2021
Decided On : 09-12-2021




The non-contestation of an Arbitration Agreement obligation permits the court to appoint a sole Arbitrator when both parties consent.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6) - Petition for appointment of Arbitrator - The petitioner sought the appointment of an Arbitrator due to the respondent's failure to provide necessary support for project execution, causing a significant delay. The respondent did not contest the existence of the Arbitration Agreement but failed to nominate an Arbitrator. (Paras 1-3)

(B) Consent of parties - The court appointed an Arbitrator as there was no objection from the respondent regarding the appointment of a sole Arbitrator. (Paras 4-6)

(C) Compliance - The learned Arbitrator is instructed to ensure adherence to Section 12 of the Arbitration Act prior to commencement of arbitration. (Paras 8)

Findings of Court:
The court allowed the petition for the appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising from the contract.

Issues: Whether the respondent had an Arbitration Agreement and the appointment of an Arbitrator.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the failure to contest the arbitration agreement and the consent from both parties justified the appointment of an Arbitrator.

Result: Petition allowed, and Mr. Justice (Retd.) J.R. Midha appointed as sole Arbitrator.

Table of Content
1. petition for appointment of arbitrator due to contract disputes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. consent for appointment of a sole arbitrator. (Para 4 , 5)
3. appointment and conduct of arbitration. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. disposition of petition and communication to arbitrator. (Para 9 , 10)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of Arbitrator on behalf of respondent to adjudicate the disputes with respondent.

2. Petitioner was awarded construction of civil and associated works for proposed Silos Complex at Batala by respondent vide Tender document bearing No.NCML/BATALA/CIVIL/2017-18/04 dated 28.02.2018 and subsequently through a Contract Agreement dated 14.05.2018, 30.08.2019 and 08.09.2020 to be completed in a time frame of 8 months. Respondent failed to provide land and other miscellaneous support, due to which the petitioner was unable to execute the work, therefore, the project is running onto its 40th Month.

3. According to petitioner, due to failure of the obligations of respondent, petitioner issued the Termination Notice cum Notice invoking Arbitration dated 30.09.2021 whereby the petitioner terminated the Contract and nominated its Arbitrator, namely,. Justice S.P. Garg, (Retd.) and upon receipt of the said notice, respondent replied vide its reply dated 28.10.2021 refuting the contentions of the petitioner, however, in its reply neither respondent denied the existence of the Arbitration Agreement nor nominated its Arbitrator. Therefore, the present petition has been filed by petitioner to nominate Arbitrator on part of respondent in terms of Clause 62 ("Arbitration Clause") forming a part of the Contract dated 14.05.2018 as executed between the parties.

4. During hearing, learned counsel for petitioner prays that sole Arbitrator may be appointed through DIAC to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

5. Learned counsel for respondent has not objected to the appointment of sole Arbitrator for adjudication of dispute between the parties.

6. In view of the above and with the consent of parties, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, Mr. Justice (Retd.) J.R. Midha (Mobile: 9717495003) is appointed sole Arbitrator in this petition to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

7. The arbitration shall be conducted under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The fee of the Arbitrator shall be in accordance with the schedule of fees prescribed under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators' Fees) Rules, 2018.

8. The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.

9. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

10. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Arbitrator for information.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top