Back
2013 Supreme(J&K) 215
JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
M.M.Kumar; CJ, J.
B.V.Sharma -Appellant
Versus
Skuast & Ors. -Resopndent
AA No. 11/2007
Decided On : 26-04-2013
Mr. P.N. Raina, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rahul Bharti, Advocates, for the Appellants
Mr. R.K. Gupta Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prem Sadotra, Advocates, for the Respondents.
The court emphasized that the Chief Justice cannot impose an arbitration agreement on the parties if one does not exist, and the petitioner should seek ordinary remedies.
Headnote:
Arbitration - Architectural Dispute - Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 - Section 11
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an architect, won an architectural competition for a university campus project. Dispute arose when the university disengaged the petitioner and engaged another firm. The petitioner sought restoration of engagement, outstanding fees, and damages through arbitration under Section 11 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no concluded agreement between the parties for the petitioner's appointment as the architect of the project, and no arbitration agreement existed. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner should seek ordinary remedies.
Issues: 1. Existence of a concluded agreement for the petitioner's appointment as the architect. 2. Existence of an arbitration agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was no confirmation in writing appointing the petitioner as the architect, and no concluded contract with arbitration clause. The court emphasized that the Chief Justice cannot impose an arbitration agreement on the parties if one does not exist.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.
1. This petition filed under Section 11 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 (for brevity 'the Act') prays for appointment of the Council of Architecture, India Habitat Centre New Delhi through its President for arbitration of the dispute between the petitioner- B. V. Sharma, who is an architect and Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology Jammu-respondent no.1 (for brevity SKUAST). The dispute is claimed to have emerged from the alleged disengagement of the petitioner vide order dated 02.08.2006 in respect of the project under reference. A further prayer has been made for restora#31;tion of the engagement of the petitioner, payment of the outstanding professional fees for the work done, payment of damages and other related issues within specified time.
A: Pleadings of the petitioner
2. The case of the petitioner, as pleaded and projected is as under:-
2.1 The SKUAST held an architectural competition for preparation of the Master plan and design of its proposed University Campus spread in the area of over 560 acres of land in village Chatha (Jammu). According to the conditions of the competition only those architects and their firms of architects, which were registered with the Council of Architectures New Delhi were eligible and invited to participate in the competition. The petitioner claimed that the terms and conditions governing the manner, scope and purpose of the competition and the follow-up thereof were incorporated in a document titled as Architectural Design Competition for the Campus of SKUAST (annexure A). The petitioner has banked upon this document to buttress his stand that the Architects Act, 1972 (for brevity 'Architect Act') and various provisions of the Architect Professional Con#31;duct Regulation 1990 stand incorporated by reference in the competition document (Annexure A). Once the provisions of Architect Act are incorpo#31;rated then disputes have to be referred to 'Arbitrator' because statute provides for arbitration.
2.1. The petitioner submitted his project design commensurating with the condition no. 24 of the Competition Document, depicting salient feature of the master plan of the project. The dimension and size of the project read with the Competition Document was a fire test for the selection of the architecture as well as the architect of the project. In that regard reference has been invited to condition no.2 (Character of the Campus), 3 (Approval of Conditions), 4 (Eligibility) and 7 (details of board of assessors) of the competition document.
2.3. The petitioner was adjudged as the winner of the competition by the Board of Assessors on 17.12.2003. In that regard reference has been invited to condition no. 7 and 9 of the Competition Document. Accordingly the design submitted by the petitioner for the master plan of the proposed campus was placed at No.1 earning him a cash prize of Rs. 3 Lacs in accordance with condition no. 9.1 of the Competition Document. The petitioner has claimed that declaration of the petitioner as the winner-ar#31;chitect brought into effect legal as well as contractual relationship inter-se the petitioner and SKUAST.
2.4. The award money of Rs. 3 Lacs, which was supposed to have been credited in favour of the petitioner within three months from the date of declaration of results as per the condition no. 9 of the Competition Docu#31;ment, was paid to the petitioner on 11.05.2005 (Annexure D) without explaining or regretting the delay of one and a half year. This is a pointer towards the mindset which attended the respondents to treat the petitioner in an unbecoming manner.
2.5. The Competition Document spelled out follow up obligation which were required to be fulfilled by SKUAST towards the winner-architect of the competition. In that regard reference has been invited to condition no. 9 (award of prizes), 10 (guidelines in respect of winning design), 14 (sub#31;missions of designs), 16 judging procedure), 19
