IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Benjamin Benjamin and Vats - Appellant
Versus
North Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
Arb.P. 162 of 2022 & I.A. 2185 of 2022
Decided On : 09-02-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the presence of an arbitration clause. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. dispute is acknowledged as arbitrable. (Para 4) |
| 3. consent to appoint an arbitrator. (Para 5) |
| 4. appointment and procedures for the arbitrator. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. disposal of petition and applications. (Para 9) |
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes with respondent.
2. Petitioner, a proprietorship concern, claims to be engaged in the business of providing services of Architects Engineers and Urban Planners. Petitioner claims to have been engaged by the respondent to render consultancy services for a project under which construction of 100 beds was to be done at Balak Ram Hospital at Timarpur. Though the employer of the said work was Public Works Department, however, the work was later transferred to the respondent. For this purpose, an Agreement dated 27.03.2003 was entered between the parties, which contained all the terms and conditions as well as details of various activities which were to be carried by the petitioner. The work was to commence on the 30th day of entering into the Agreement i.e. 25.04.2003 and was to be completed within 24 months thereof i.e. 24.04.2005.
3. Petitioner claims that during the execution of the work, the architectural drawings of the ward block was modified/revised several times and petitioner raised its claim towards the additional work vide letter 16.05.2019 and 23.07.2019 from the respondent. Even thereafter, petitioner claims to have exchanged several communications with respondent, but to no avail. Hence, vide email dated 18.03.2021 petitioner invoked arbitration in terms of Clause-12 Agreement and even the said e-mail was not replied by the respondent. Thus, the present petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for respondent, who has entered appearance on advance notice, has disputed the claims raised in the present petition, however, he submits that disputes are arbitrable and this Court may appoint an independent Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties.
5. Pertinently, existence of Agreement dated 27.03.2003 executed between the parties is not disputes and also it is not disputed that disputes between the parties have to be resolved in terms of Clause-12 thereof. Invocation of arbitration by petitioner vide email dated 18.03.2021 is also not disputed. Since counsel representing both the sides have consented that the disputes are arbitrable and an independent Arbitrator be appointed by this Court, the present petition is allowed.
6. Accordingly, Mr. P.C. Ranga, DHJS (Retd.) (Mobile: 9868905228) is appointed the sole Arbitrator 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 (DIAC) (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 and pending application, if any, are accordingly disposed of.
The court ruled that disputes under an arbitration agreement are arbitrable and can be resolved through appointed arbitrators, affirming the consent of both parties.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint an independent arbitrator for adjudication of disputes based on the arbitration agreement.
Disputes arising under an agreement concerning construction are arbitrable, and a court may appoint an arbitrator as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court's power to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the arbitrability of disputes under the agreement's Clause 25.
No single party can be permitted to unilaterally appoint the Arbitrator, as it would defeat the purpose of unbiased adjudication of dispute between parties.
Unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator is prohibited under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, reinforcing the need for unbiased adjudication as per the Supreme Court ruling.
Appointment of a sole arbitrator must comply with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and should not be in violation of relevant legal precedents.
The court sanctioned the appointment of an Arbitrator despite procedural violations, highlighting the importance of adherence to statutory provisions while respecting the parties' agreements.
In the event of the demise of the sole Arbitrator, a new Arbitrator can be appointed to continue the arbitration proceedings in accordance with Sections 14 & 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Ac....
The necessity to appoint a new Arbitrator is confirmed under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, recognizing the continuation of the arbitration process post-demise of the ori....
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.