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.
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




The court ruled that disputes under an arbitration agreement are arbitrable and can be resolved through appointed arbitrators, affirming the consent of both parties.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6) - Petition for appointment of Arbitrator - Petitioner engaged for providing consultancy services for a construction project; disputes arose regarding additional work - Invocation of arbitration unchallenged - Respondent consented to arbitration and agreed to appoint an independent Arbitrator. (Paras 1-5)

(B) The court permitted the appointment of an Arbitrator, emphasizing the uncontested nature of the arbitration agreement and the consent of both parties for dispute resolution. (Paras 5-6)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought arbitration due to disputes arising from additional work claims during the execution of a project as specified in an agreement dated 27.03.2003, which laid out the commencement and duration of work. Petitioner invoked arbitration via email on 18.03.2021 after unresolved communications with the respondent.

Findings of Court:
Petition allowed, and an independent Arbitrator appointed to adjudicate disputes pursuant to the arbitration agreement.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the existence and enforceability of the arbitration agreement and the parties' consent for appointment of an Arbitrator.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the arbitration agreement was binding, with both parties consenting to dispute resolution through arbitration, necessitating the appointment of an Arbitrator.

Result: Petition allowed and Arbitrator appointed.

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)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

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.

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