ARB No. 165 of 2018 (O&M)

-1-

229

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

ARB No. 165 of 2018 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 15.11.2022

M/s Deepak Builders and Engineers India Pvt. Ltd.

-Petitioner

Versus

Amritsar Development Authority and others

-Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

Present:

Mr. Rohan Mittal, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. R.S. Khosla, Sr. Advocate, with

Mr. Sarvesh Malik, Advocate,

for the respondents.

****

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral)

1.

The petitioner has preferred this petition under

Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for

appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of dispute between

the parties.

2.

The petitioner participated in tender process for the

work of development of New Urban estate namely Aero City

situated at Amritsar- Ajnala Road, Amritsar. Petitioner submitted

its tender on 09.12.2016 and the same was accepted on

23.12.2016 being the lowest tender. The standard bidding

document is also a part of the tender and the same has

JYOTI SHARMA

2022.11.16 11:11

I attest to the authenticity and

accuracy of this

order/judgment

ARB No. 165 of 2018 (O&M)

-2-

arbitration clause no.25.

3.

According to the petitioner, after allocation of work on

23.12.2016, petitioner started undertaking the work. The tender

process was assailed in the High Court in CWP No.17631 of

2017 and the same was decided vide order dated 23.10.2017

after noticing that detailed notice inviting tender has already

been scraped and therefore, the writ petition was ordered to be

rendered infructuous and was disposed of as such. The

petitioner was impleaded as respondent No.6. Learned counsel

for the respondent No.6 sought opportunity to take re-course to

the remedy available to the respondent No.6 therein in

accordance with law. Liberty was granted to the respondent

No.6 i.e. the present petitioner in the writ petition to take

recourse to the remedies available to it in accordance with law.

Thereafter, present petition came to be filed.

4.

In the legal notice dated 04.01.2018, though the

petitioner has shown the date of completion of the work

assignment as 22.06.2018, however, the said assertion would

remain debatable as the interim order was granted by the High

Court on 10.01.2017 and the detailed notice inviting tender was

scraped and project work was withdrawn thereafter. The extent

of work done by the petitioner would be subject to the evidence

to be adduced by the petitioner and rebutted by the respondent

JYOTI SHARMA

2022.11.16 11:11

I attest to the authenticity and

accuracy of this

order/judgment

ARB No. 165 of 2018 (O&M)

-3-

in due course.

5.

The petitioner has shown different claims ranging

from claim no.1 to claim no.4 thereby tentatively fixed its claim

to the tune of Rs.4,34,87,900/-.

6.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent,

however, opposed the claim of the petitioner on the ground that

in the event of scraping the project itself, the petitioner is not

entitled for any amount. Clause 56.3 of the Standard Bidding

document prescribes that in the event of scraping the project

itself, the petitioner is not entitled for any claim.

7.

I have considered the arguments advanced by

learned counsel for the parties.

8.

In my considered opinion, the assertion and denial by

the parties are required to be adjudicated by an independent

arbitrator in accordance with law. The existence of standard

bidding document having arbitration clause is not in dispute. It is

also not in dispute that the standard bidding document is also a

part of tender document.

9.

In view of consensus arrived at between the parties,

I deem it appropriate to appoint HMJ Ranjit Singh (Retd.),

H.No.1024, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh, 09899791094, 0172-

2651666, justice.ranjit@gmail.com as the sole Arbitrator, to

resolve the dispute/difference between the parties. The

JYOTI SHARMA