ARB.P. 1216/2021

Page 1 of 11

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: January 20, 2022

Pronounced on: January 28, 2022

+

ARB.P. 1216/2021

SRICO PROJECTS PVT. LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Shoeb Alam, Ms.Fauzia

Shakil & Mr. Ujjwal Singh,

Advocates

Versus

CENTRAL RAILSIDE WAREHOUSE CO. LTD. .... Respondent

Through:

Mr. K. K. Tyagi & Mr.Iftekhar

Ahmad, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

JUDGMENT

1.

The present Petition is preferred by the petitioner under Section 11

(5) r/w Section (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking

appointment of sole Arbitrator in terms of Clause- 25 of Clauses of

Contract of the Agreement dated 16.11.2017 executed with respondent.

2.

Petitioner-M/s SRICO Projects Pvt. Ltd. is a company registered

under the Companies Act, 1956 and with MSME and respondent- Central

Railside Warehouse Co. Ltd., an Enterprise of the Government of India,

is also a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956.

2022:DHC:325

ARB.P. 1216/2021

Page 2 of 11

3.

According to petitioner, it has participated in the tender process

issued by the respondent on 05.05.2017 for construction of 20400 MTC

Warehouse along with ancillaries, internal roads, and electrical

installation with temperature control facility at Fatuha, Bihar, at an

estimated cost of Rs.12,91,46,503.19/- and was awarded the said work at

an estimate cost of Rs.22,08,40,520.45/- and for this purpose, an

Agreement was executed at New Delhi on 16.11.2017. In terms of the

contract, petitioner was required to furnish a security deposit of 5% of

the tendered value in terms of Clause 15(i) and performance

security/guarantee of 5% of the tendered value i.e. Rs.1,10,42,000/-. The

work was to commence within 10 days of allocation of work order and

was to be completed within 15 months thereof i.e. by 11.02.2019.

However, the date of completion of work was extended various times

and thereby, completion of project was extended to or before 30-06-

2020. Petitioner claims to have satisfactorily completed the project

before 30.06.2020 and after completing the necessary Defects Liability

Period of one year as per the agreement, the project site was handed over

to the respondent on 30.06.2021.

4.

According to petitioner, respondent vide letter dated 15.04.2021

2022:DHC:325

ARB.P. 1216/2021

Page 3 of 11

informed the petitioner that from the payable amount of the submitted

13^thRA Bill dated 06.07.2021, a deduction of Rs.1,32,50,431.23/-

(Rs.1,56,35,308/- with 18% GST) would be done on account of alleged

delay in the completion of project. In reply to the aforesaid letter,

petitioner by its reply dated 01.06.2021 denied respondents attribution of

delay, liability and default on the petitioner and also requested for an

amicable resolution of the disputes.

5.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner

submitted that delay in completion of the project occurred due to various

and frequent breaches of project, warranties, conditions, timelines, delay

in removal of obstruction on sites, multiple modifications at the end of

respondent and in fact, petitioner had suffered huge losses due to

repeated and prolonged delays.

6.

Further, petitioner vide its letter dated 22.10.2021 called upon the

Manging Director of the respondent-company for release of the amount

deducted from the RA bill of petitioner, which was not replied to.

Thereafter, vide notice dated 12.11.2021 petitioner invoked arbitration

and proposed name of Mr.Justice (Retd.) Dharnidhar Jha to act as sole

arbitrator. However, the Managing Director of respondent by

2022:DHC:325

ARB.P. 1216/2021

Page 4 of 11

communication dated 22.11.2021 appointed Sh. Ratnesh Kumar Bariar as

the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

7.

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that appointment of

Ratnesh Kumar Baria