IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
KGL Infrastructures - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Arb.P. 982 of 2021
Decided On : 21-12-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute arose from contract execution delays. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner seeks arbitration appointment. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. arbitrator appointed under arbitration act. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court order for arbitration conclusion. (Para 10 , 11) |
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of Arbitrator on behalf of respondent to adjudicate the disputes with respondent. Pertinently, petitioner is a partnership firm and is engaged in the business of construction and undertakes railway contracts.
2. According to petitioner, it was awarded work for providing of limited height sub way in place of U/M L-xing no.35 at km. 38/4-4, 37 at km.40/4-5 and 39 at km. 41/5-6 under railway track between KEX-BTU section on DSA-SMQL section under ADEN/SMQL vide acceptance letter dated 30.05.2017 for Rs.4,73,51,203/- and stipulated date of completion of work was 6 months i.e. 30.11.2017. All arrangements were made for execution of work but due to late sanctioning of block for placing of pre-casted RCC boxes, substantial increase in the scope of work, late decisions, increase in cost, non-availability of funds, late sanctioning of Addendum & Corrigendum, the work was extended upto 29.02.2020.
3. Thereafter, petitioner reminded the concerned department about the preparation of final bill but it kept on evading on one pretext or the other. Petitioner again made several requests to consider making payments qua the items not paid in the final bill but the same did not fetch any result.
4. According to petitioner, due to failure of the obligations of respondent, petitioner issued letter dated 02.08.2021 invoking Arbitration as contained under clause 64 of the General conditions of the Contract, calling upon the respondent to make the payment of the claims of the petitioner and constitute the Arbitration Tribunal. In response thereto, respondent asked for a waiver under section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Hence, the present petition has been filed.
5. During hearing, learned counsel for petitioner prays that sole Arbitrator may be appointed to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
6. Learned counsel for respondent has objected to the averments made in the present petition however, has submitted that the disputes are arbitrable.
7. In view of the above the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Senior Advocate (Mobile: 9810021863) is appointed sole Arbitrator in this petition to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
8. The fee of the learned Arbitrator shall be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
9. The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.
10. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Arbitrator for information.
The court upheld the arbitrability of disputes arising from contractual obligations, appointing a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The court's decision emphasized the appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The main legal point established is the arbitrability of disputes under the construction contract and the court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19....
Disputes concerning contract completion and payment arise, necessitating arbitration as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court has the authority to appoint a sole Arbitrator when disputes arise under an arbitration clause and the responding party does not object to the appointment.
The court's decision emphasizes the validity of invoking arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause of the work order and the importance of compliance with Section 12 of the Arbitration an....
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.
The court confirmed the validity of invoking arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act when disputes arise over contract performance and payment.
A unilateral appointment of an arbitrator violates principles of unbiased dispute resolution. An arbitrator must be appointed consensually or by the court.
The court applied the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint a sole arbitrator and ensure compliance before commencing the arbitration.
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.