Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Rajdeep Buildcon Pvt. Ltd vs Ircon International Limited on 22 February, 2019

Author: Navin Chawla

Bench: Navin Chawla

$~17
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    ARB.P. 13/2019
     RAJDEEP BUILDCON PVT. LTD.                 ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Ms.Sadiqua Fatma, Adv.

                         versus

     IRCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED              ..... Respondent
                  Through: Mr.Suman Doval, Mr.Jatin Handoo,
                  Advs.

     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
                  ORDER

% 22.02.2019

1. This petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟) has been filed by the petitioner seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator or in the alternate appointment of a nominee Arbitrator on behalf of the respondent for adjudicating the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the Contract dated 06.07.2012 for the work of "Construction of Road over Bridges ROB/RUB and its approaches as per Specifications, Drawings and Design, Maintaining all Quality Control Standards etc. complete under ROB/RUB Cluster Package-C at Jodhpur, Makrana and Suratgarh in lieu of various LCs in Rajasthan State".

2. Disputes having arisen between the parties, the petitioner initiated proceedings for conciliation under Clause 73.2.2 of the Contract Agreement vide letter dated 09.07.2018.

3. As the conciliation proceedings failed, the petitioner invoked the Arbitration Agreement between the parties contained in Clause 73.4 of the General Conditions of Contract on 16.10.2018. By the letter dated 06.11.2018, the respondent forwarded a panel of four names for the petitioner to choose its nominee Arbitrator from. The four names suggested by the respondent were all former officers of Indian Railways. The response of the respondent not being in conformity with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Voestalpine Schienen Gmbh vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (2017) 4 SCC 665, the petitioner filed the present petition.

4. The respondent has now offered the petitioner to choose from the complete panel of Arbitrators empanelled by the respondent.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to appoint Mr.B.D.Joshi, CEO cum Secretary, HIMUDA, (Retd. Engineer in chief, HPPWD) as its nominee Arbitrator.

6. As the respondent has lost its right to appoint a nominee Arbitrator, I appoint Mr.Ashok Khurana, Ex. Director General/CPWD as the nominee Arbitrator of the respondent.

7. With the consent of the counsels for the parties, Justice Swatanter Kumar, Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India (A- 118, 2nd Floor, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024, Mobile- 9560413636) is appointed as the Presiding Arbitrator.

8. The Arbitrators so appointed shall give the disclosure under Section 12 of the Act before proceeding with the reference.

9. The fee of the Arbitrators shall be fixed in accordance with the Fourth Schedule to the Act.

10. The petition is allowed in the above terms, with no order as to costs.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J FEBRUARY 22, 2019 RN