ARB.P. 64-67/2022

$~46 to 49

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on: 09^th May, 2022

+

ARB.P. 64/2022

JAGJEET SINGH

..... Petitioner

versus

UNION OF INDIA

..... Respondent

+

ARB.P. 65/2022

JAGJEET SINGH

..... Petitioner

versus

UNION OF INDIA

..... Respondent

+

ARB.P. 66/2022

JAGJEET SINGH

..... Petitioner

versus

UNION OF INDIA

..... Respondent

+

ARB.P. 67/2022

JAGJEET SINGH

..... Petitioner

versus

UNION OF INDIA

..... Respondent

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001787

ARB.P. 64-67/2022

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner:

Ms. Kanika Singh, Advocate

For the Respondent: Ms. Monika Arora, Central Government Standing Counsel

CORAM:-

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

1.

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

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001787

ARB.P. 64-67/2022

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

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

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001787

ARB.P. 64-67/2022

section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 within two

weeks of entering reference.

10.

Petitions are allowed in the above terms.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

MAY 9, 2022

‘rs’

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001787