Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
AEE Engineeers and Contactors - Appellant
Versus
Ignou - Respondent
Arb.P. 1093 of 2021
Decided On : 12-01-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis for arbitration proceedings (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. invocation of arbitration clause (Para 4) |
| 3. absence of respondent indicates lack of opposition (Para 5) |
| 4. appointment of arbitrator and fee schedule (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. disposal and forwarding of order (Para 9 , 10) |
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties.
2. Petitioner No.1 is the proprietorship firm of petitioner No.2 and is engaged in the business of supply and maintenance of electrical jobs etc.
3. As per the averments made in the present petition, respondent awarded the work of operation of 5 Electric Sub-Station Equipment installed in ESS-1 2, 4, 5 & 10 at IGNOU Campus, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi vide letter for commencement No.IG/CMD/EE/2015-16/1552 dated 18.11.2015 after conveying acceptance of his quotation vide letter No.IG/CMD/EE(E)/2015-16/1549 dated 17.11.2015. Subsequently, Agreement No.IG/CMD/EE(E)/WO/2015-16 dated 19.11.2015 was executed between the parties. Contract was further extended several times, However, when petitioners raised the bills from time to time for the work executed by it, the respondent failed to make payment. The payments towards bills dated 23.04.2018 and 21.06.2018 are still due. ESI and PF reimbursement towards bills dated 01.11.2017, 23.04.2018 and 21.06.2018 amounting to Rs.63 Lakhs are also due. Petitioners requested for the release of amount of their bills to respondent several times through various communications including Letter dated 21.06.2018, e-mails dated 04.08.2018 as well as by letter dated 06.01.2020 to EE (E) and other Officers to release due payments but respondents failed to make the said payments. Thereafter, disputes arose between the parties.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners served a notice dated 09.04.2021 upon respondent invoking Arbitration in terms of Clause 10 of the Agreement, however, respondent failed to do so. Hence, the present petition has been filed.
5. On 02.12.2021, notice was issued to respondent and as per office report, respondent is served, however, none has appeared on its behalf. It seems that respondent has nothing to oppose in the present petition.
6. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, Mr. P.C. Ranga, DHJS (Retd.) (Mobile:9868905228) is appointed sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
7. The fee of the learned Arbitrator shall be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
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.
Non-compliance by a party allows the court to appoint a sole Arbitrator under the Arbitration Act when arbitration notices are ignored.
The court's decision highlights the importance of honoring arbitration clauses in agreements and the appointment of arbitrators to resolve disputes.
Court can appoint an arbitrator when both parties consent to arbitration for resolving disputes, even amidst contractual disagreements.
The court can appoint an Arbitrator when parties fail to mutually agree, as per agreement provisions and arbitration law.
The court upheld the arbitrability of disputes arising from contractual obligations, appointing a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is impermissible; parties must appoint an arbitrator jointly or seek court appointment to ensure unbiased dispute resolution.
The court's decision emphasized the appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of consent and lack of objection from both parties in appointing a sole arbitrator.
The main legal point established is the court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 when the parties fail to mutually appoint one,....
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
