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
| 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) |
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.
The non-contestation of an Arbitration Agreement obligation permits the court to appoint a sole Arbitrator when both parties consent.
The court has the authority to appoint a sole Arbitrator in accordance with the Arbitration Clause forming a part of the Contract.
The court affirmed that when parties acknowledge disputes in a contractual agreement, an arbitrator must be appointed to resolve these disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A unilateral appointment of an arbitrator violates principles of unbiased dispute resolution. An arbitrator must be appointed consensually or by the court.
Court has the discretion to appoint a new Arbitrator to continue unresolved arbitration proceedings, affirming continuity even after the previous Arbitrator's death.
The court ruled that a Sole Arbitrator is to be appointed to resolve disputes under the contract due to the respondent's failure to meet contractual obligations.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint an arbitrator to resolve disputed claims between parties in accordance with Section 11(6) of the Arbitration an....
Disputes arising from a construction contract for unpaid dues are arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, prompting the appointment of a sole arbitrator.
The court's decision emphasized the arbitrability of disputes and the appointment of a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court confirmed the validity of invoking arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act when disputes arise over contract performance and payment.
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.