IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J.
M/s Gurnam Singh Construction Company, Through Its Sole Proprietor Gurnam Singh, Son Of Sh. Jaswant Singh – Appellant
Versus
Sacred Heart Sen. Sec. School Dalhousie, Through Its Senior Sister/Manager (Sr. Stella) – Respondent
Arbitration Case No. 32 of 2019
Decided on : 01-04-2022
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11, 12, 4, 11 (13), (6) - Sole Arbitrator - Appointment Of An Independent Arbitrator To Resolve Dispute - This is an application filed under Section 11 read with Section 12 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for appointment of an independent Arbitrator to resolve dispute between petitioner and respondents - According to petitioner, respondent was obliged to pay 25% of the construction amount, being approximately Rs.83,23,000/in advance as mobilization amount. However, the respondent paid only sum of Rs.60,00,000/- as mobilization advance and, that too, in many installments.
Finding of the Court:
Since respondents failed to receive any response from petitioner therefore, respondent went ahead and proceeded to appoint a learned retied Judge of Delhi High Court as sole arbitrator to arbitrate on disputes - Delhi High Court held that it was proceeding on basis of statutory provisions and law laid down by Supreme Court in that regard and did not, in any manner, want to reflect on impartiality or integrity of learned arbitrator, who is respected retired Judge of Delhi High Court - Delhi High Court placed reliance on Judgment of Perkins Eastman’s case supra, while holding that unilateral appointment of arbitrator by respondent to be unsustainable and appointed another retired Judge of that High Court to act as an arbitrator - Judgments cited by learned counsel for respondents are distinguishable on facts - Copy of this order be forwarded to learned counsel for parties, as also to Arbitrator - Arbitrator so appointed shall be entitled to fee as per stipulation contained in 4th schedule appended to Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Result: Case disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
This is an application filed under Section 11 read with Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), praying for appointment of an independent Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents.
2. The petitioner is a proprietorship firm and Shri Gurnam Singh is its sole proprietor. The respondent with an intent to construct Sacred Heart Senior Secondary school, Junior Wing, Garden Villa, at Dalhousie, entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 6.4.2017. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the construction was to be raised strictly in accordance with the drawings and specifications to be provided by the respondent and has been elaborated in the schedule of the agreement. However, according to the petitioner, it was required to start the construction only after receipt of the drawings and specifications duly approved by the respondent which were provided by the respondent after a delay of about five months on 7.9.2017. The construction work was to be completed on or before 7.9.2018, failing which, the respondent had the right to impose the penalty of Rs.1500/per day. According to the agreement, two separate buildings were required to be constructed, i.e., construction of one M.S. shed and another Garden Villa, school building. When the construction of the M.S. shed was at the final stage, its area was ordered to be extended from approximately 16250 sq. feet to more than 18000 sq. feet. Besides this extension, many other additions and alterations were ordered to be made to the shed, e.g, construction of new steps after dismantling the old steps for sitting arrangement and three staircases. According to the petitioner it had completed the construction within the stipulated time frame. However, the respondent made the payments quite belatedly and, that too, in parts inasmuch as no payment against the dismantling of old steps, construction of new steps and for construction of staircases was made. However, for the alteration of the work, the petitioner had to divert his major resources, manpower and machinery for the construction of the shed, which has caused delay in the construction of Garden Villa School building. As per the agreement between the parties, the electricity and water was to be supplied uninterruptedly by the respondent. The electricity remained disconnected for a considerable long time for which no efforts were made by the respondent to get the same resumed. The petitioner had to incur additional costs for that on its own level. This has resulted in delay in construction and missing the deadline for the constriction owing to which the petitioner could not complete the work on 7.9.2018 and requested the respondent to extend the time period upto 31.10.2018. However, respondent agreed to extend the time only upto 15.10.2018. Even the respondent ordered various additions, alterations and modifications for the construction of Garden Villa, the respondent was required to make the payment approximately Rs.2,67,30,000/- however, the total payment made by the respondent till date against the said construction is only approximately Rs.2,27,70,000/. No payment for additions, alternations and modifications has been made.
3. According to the petitioner, the respondent was obliged to pay 25% of the construction amount, being approximately Rs.83,23,000/in advance as mobilization amount. However, the respondent paid only sum of Rs.60,00,000/- as mobilization advance and, that too, in many installments. According to Clause 19 of the agreement, window of 57 days against the running /final bills is provided, however, all the payments were made beyond 7 days. The petitioner in the month of November, 2018 served a legal notice for seeking the appointment of arbitrator for resolution of dispute. However, despite due service no reply was sent by the respondent. The respondent also issued legal notice dated 10.11.2018 claimin
As per Section 11 (13) of the Act now arbitration is required to be decided within 30 days.
The main legal point established is that for a dispute to be referred to an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, it must arise from the agreement and be arbitrable in nature.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of an arbitrator must be in accordance with the law, and if found to be invalid, the court has the jurisdiction to set it asid....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's failure to exhaust the mandatory dispute resolution procedure as per the contract rendered the petition premature and non-mai....
The court emphasized that objections of time-bar and prematurity cannot prevent the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal, and relied on precedents to appoint a Sole Arbitrator.
Point of Law : Whatever advantage a party may derive by nominating an arbitrator of its choice would get counter balanced by equal power with the other party. But, in a case where only one party has ....
The court emphasized the necessity for impartiality in arbitration, ruling that automatic appointments of arbitrators undermined the arbitration clause, rendering the award invalid.
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.