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
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Jagjeet Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Arb.P. 64 of 2022, Arb.P. 65 of 2022, Arb.P. 66 of 2022 and Arb.P. 67 of 2022
Decided On : 09-05-2022




The court ruled that disputes over rejected and delayed payments warrant arbitration, appointing a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the claims in the interest of justice.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Clause 25 - Reference of disputes - Petitioner sought arbitration for disputes arising from the General Conditions of Contract - Respondent approved payments but disputes remain regarding rejected claims and interest on delayed payments - Court found common issues across cases necessitating arbitration. (Paras 1, 6)

(B) Arbitration - Sole Arbitrator - The court appointed a Sole Arbitrator for all petitions in the interest of justice to adjudicate claims and counterclaims. (Paras 7, 8)

(C) Disclosure Requirements - The Arbitrator is required to furnish disclosure under section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. (Paras 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner seeks reference of disputes to an Arbitral Tribunal due to unresolved payment issues, including rejected claims and requests for interest on delayed payments. Respondent disputes the claims.

Findings of Court:
Disputes exist between the parties that warrant arbitration; an appointed Sole Arbitrator will adjudicate claims and counterclaims.

Issues: The main issues were whether unresolved claims warranted arbitration and the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under existing contractual relationships.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of arbitration for outstanding disputes and appointed an Arbitrator to ensure a streamlined resolution process, citing the commonality of issues across contracts.

Result: Petitions allowed.

Table of Content
1. reference to arbitration is sought. (Para 1)
2. disputes regarding payments and claims. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
3. parties referred to arbitration due to outstanding disputes. (Para 6)
4. appointment of sole arbitrator and fee structure. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
5. petitions allowed based on above terms. (Para 10)

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. Petitioner seeks reference of disputes to an Arbitral Tribunal to be constituted in accordance with Clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract between the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the final bills submitted by the petitioner have been verified and approved for payment. She submits that in one case payment of Rs.37,33,565/- has already been disbursed and balance payment of Rs.79,09,179/- in the remaining three contracts has been cleared and shall be paid subject to availability of funds.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the said payment, the disputes still survive as some of the claims have been rejected and some claims have been cleared for lesser amount and even the approved payments have not been released. Besides this there is also a claim for interest on delayed payments.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent disputes the claims of the Petitioner.

5. However, learned Counsel for the parties submit that though the work orders are different, common questions would arise for consideration in all the cases.

6. Since the contentions of the petitioner is that some of the claims have been rejected and some claims have been short paid and there is also claim for interest, I am of the view that the disputes between the parties still survive and thus parties are liable to be referred to arbitration. Since, it is contended that common issues may arise for consideration in all the petitions, I am of the view that interest of justice requires that the disputes be referred to one Arbitrator.

7. Accordingly, without prejudice to their rights and contentions of the parties, Mr. Baljeet Singh Dhir, Advocate (Mobile No. +91 98110 88103; Email: bsdhir@hotmail.com; Chamber No. 336, Lawyers Chambers Block I, Delhi High Court, New Delhi) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator in all the petitions to adjudicate the claims and counter claims, if any, of the parties.

8. The fees of the learned Arbitrator shall be as per the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

9. The Arbitrator shall furnish the requisite disclosure under section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 within two weeks of entering reference.

10. Petitions are allowed in the above terms.

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