The court affirmed that the disputes between the parties were arbitral in nature and appointed a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

I.A. 18553/2022 (Exemption)

Exemptions allowed subject to just exceptions.

The applications stand disposed of.

ARB.P. 1249/2022

1. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under the provision of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 qua the dispute arising out of the Standard Terms and Conditions of Contract and Work Order.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Civil Engineering Contractor working in and around National Capital Territory of Delhi on a wide range of civil engineering projects, from conception to completion. The respondent is an entity inside the ATS Group, of which it is a subsidiary.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner the respondent's primary business activity consists of building residential properties in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The respondent hired the Petitioner to carry out the tasks outlined in the contract.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that respondent contracted Petitioner for "Post Tensioning Work" at their Project named "ATS Bouquet, Sector-132, Noida, U.P." via Letter of Intent/Award dated 22nd August, 2018 and 28th June, 2019.

5. It is submitted that respondent thereafter, issued a Work Order dated 22nd August, 2018 in favour of petitioner, outlining the provisions of the contract, including the scope of work, contract price, start and end dates, and general terms and conditions.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was responsible for finishing the job in issue that was given to them by the work order. With the work order, the petitioner expressed concern regarding the ongoing and periodic Bill(s). After making the appropriate adjustments for the amount that was received in payment of the bill or bills that were incurred due to the Project, it was discovered that the petitioner is still owed a total amount that is due, payable, and overdue in the amount of Rs.64,77,340.

7. It is submitted that the Petitioner made numerous statements and requests to the respondent in an effort to get the aforementioned debts paid off. The respondent neglected to pay and present the dues of the petitioner despite absence of any objection, complaint, or grievance.

8. It is submitted that the Work Order provides for the dispute resolution clause whereby the disputes between the parties shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with Clause 1.18. It is further submitted that the respondent's director must select and appoint the sole arbitrator in order to arbitrate the disputes arising between the parties.

9. It is further submitted that in consequence thereto, the petitioner was forced and compelled to issue a formal Notice on 14th March, 2020 demanding the payment of their dues or, as an alternative, constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal or Sole Arbitrator.

10. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondent vehemently opposed the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioner, however it is accepted that dispute in question are arbitral in nature. It is also submitted that there is no objection if the instant dispute is referred by the Court to a sole arbitrator.

11. As agreed on behalf of the parties, it is evident that the parties intend the Court to refer the disputes to arbitration, by appointing a sole arbitrator. In view of the request made by the parties, to resolve the dispute, the said disputes and differences arising between the parties are referred to arbitration, by appointing an arbitral tribunal. Hence, the following Order