Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S. Ramji Das Dhal Construction Pvt. ... vs Union Of India & Anr on 10 January, 2023
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ARB.P. 1282/2022
M/S. RAMJI DAS DHAL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD-
PUSHPANJALI CONST (P) LTD. (JV) ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Risha Mittal, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.B.S.Shukla, CGSC with
Mr.Vikrant, Adv. for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
ORDER
% 10.01.2023
1. This petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the Contract Agreement bearing CA No.DGMAP/PH-II/PKG-26/G/T/R&C/08 OF 2014-2015.
2. The Arbitration Agreement between the parties is contained in Clause 60 of the General Conditions of Contract.
3. Disputes having arisen between the parties, the petitioner invoked the Arbitration Agreement vide notice dated 02.07.2022. As the respondents failed to appoint a Sole Arbitrator, the present petition was filed.
4. Herein, it must be noticed that the arbitration agreement provides that Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Date:12.01.2023 14:32:09 the Serving Officer of the respondent shall be appointed as the Sole Arbitrator, however, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects v. HSCC (India) Ltd. AIR 2020 SC 59, the said clause, in absence of an express waiver by the petitioner, would no longer be enforceable.
5. The respondent in its reply has contended that the claim of the petitioner with respect to the refund of the performance security is premature as the final bill of the petitioner is yet to be settled.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that though the final bill has been submitted by the petitioner on 31.01.2020, the same is not settled for want of co-operation from the petitioner.
7. In my view, both the above contentions cannot be a ground for refusing appointment of a Sole Arbitrator. Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek refund of the performance security and /or the final payment of bill, are disputes to be adjudicated by the learned Arbitrator.
8. As the existence of the arbitration agreement and due invocation thereof remain uncontested, I see no ground to refuse the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes between the parties in relation to the above mentioned Contract.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent vide circular dated 07.02.2022 has prepared a panel of Arbitrators. She submits that she has no objection on appointment of Sh.Sorabh Mathur, retired Joint DG with MES to be appointed as a Sole Arbitrator.
10. Accordingly, I appoint Sh.Sorabh Mathur, retired Joint DG, MES (Mobile: 9868206312) as the Sole Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the above Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Date:12.01.2023 14:32:09 mentioned Contract. The arbitrator shall give a disclosure in terms of Section 12 of the Act before entering upon the reference. The fee of the learned Sole Arbitrator shall be governed by Schedule IV of the Act.
11. The petition is allowed in the above terms.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J JANUARY 10, 2023 RN Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Date:12.01.2023 14:32:09