The court reaffirmed that arbitration processes must adhere to the terms set in agreements, and claims of duress or bias require substantial evidence, which was not provided.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioner in the present Writ Petition is challenging the order dated15.05.2024, passed in Arbitration Petition No.16 of 2024 by the Commercial Court/ Khurda/ dismissing the petitioner’s application under Section 151 of the CPC for a stay of arbitration proceedings pending before Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The petitioner is a joint venture comprising M/s. Woodhill Infrastructure Ltd. and M/s. Hillways Construction Ltd.

(ii) Rail Vikas Nigam Limited invited bids for the execution work namely ‘Earthwork in formation - (excluding blanket), Minor Bridges between Km 19.000 to Km 47.000 and 3 Nos. of Steelgirder Bridges, 8 Nos. of Road over Bridges between Km. 19.000 to Km 67.000 in connection with Angul-Sukinda new Railway BG Line in State of Odisha, India’.

(iii) The petitioner’s bid was declared as technically successful bid, and consequently, the Letter of Acceptance dated 23.12.2013 was issued in favour of the petitioner.

(iv) Subsequently, an agreement was executed between the parties on23.04.2014. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner mobilized personnel, machinery, key construction equipment, and other overheads necessary to commence the work.

(v) Despite the petitioner’s efforts, certain hindrances allegedly beyond its control delayed the project. As a result, the petitioner sought extensions of time, which were granted in phases, with the final extension allowing completion by 31.03.2022.

(vi) The petitioner completed the work within the extended timeline and submitted a No Claim Certificate as required under the agreement. However, the petitioner claims that this submission was made under financial duress and that certain dues remained unpaid by the respondent.

(vii) The petitioner/ vide letter dated 13.10.2020/ intimated its claims for adjudication. Furthermore/ fearing the expiration of the limitation period/ the petitioner issued a letter dated 08.06.2023/ reiterating its claims. Rail Vikas Nigam Limited rejected these claims through its letter dated 10.07.2023/ citing the No Claim Certificate.

(viii) Aggrieved by this, the petitioner invoked CIause-20.3 of the agreement dated 23.04.2014 which provides for dispute resolution through arbitration and nominated Mr. Pradeep Kumar Gupta, Retd. Special DC, CPWD, as its arbitrator via letter dated 14.11.2023.

(ix) The respondent, in turn, proposed a modified list of arbitrators and requested the petitioner to nominate from the said list. The petitioner subsequently nominated Mr. Chahatey Ram, Retd. G.M., NF Rly.(IRSE), as its arbitrator.

(x) The respondent appointed Mr. Vishwesh Chaube, Ex-M.E., Railway Board, as its nominee arbitrator. The two nominee arbitrators then jointly appointed Mr. Achal Khare, Retd. GM, DFCCIL, as the presiding arbitrator, thereby constituting the Arbitral Tribunal.

(xi) The Opposite. Parties No. 3 and 4 jointly appointed Opposite. Party No.2 Mr Achal Khare as the presiding arbitrator.

(xii) The petitioner, vide letter dated 04.01.2024, objected to the composition of the Arbitral Tribunal, alleging duress in both the submission of the No Claim Certificate and the acceptance of Mr. Chahatey Ram as its nominee arbitrator.

(xiii) The petitioner further filed an application under Sections 13(3) and 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the mandate and constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal.

(xiv) Opposite Parties No. 3 and 4 submitted their disclosures in terms of Section 12 (1) of the Arbitration and Concil