Delhi High Court - Orders
Tcpl-Scc (Jv) vs Ircon International Ltd on 16 October, 2023
Author: Yogesh Khanna
Bench: Yogesh Khanna
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ARB.P. 562/2023
TCPL-SCC (JV) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.S.K.Sharma, Mr.Avneet Sikka,
Mr.Kailash Sharma, Advocates.
versus
IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Ritesh Singh, Mr.Navneet
K.Singh, Mr.Raj Kumar, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
ORDER
% 16.10.2023
1. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Clause 48.2.2 of the Special Conditions of Contract-I speaks about arbitration, which read as under:
"48.2 CONCILIATION/ARBITRATION 48.2.1 xxxxx 48.2.2 In the event of failure to resolve any dispute or difference between the parties hereto as to the construction or operation of this contract, or the respective rights and liabilities of the parties on any matter in question, dispute or difference on any account or as to the withholding by the Employer of any certificate to which the contractor may claim to be entitled to, through mutual settlement, the Contractor may refer such matters to the Chairman cum Managing Director in writing within 60 days from the date of failure of amicable settlement of such disputes or differences for settlement through Conciliation.
If the efforts to resolve all or any of the disputes through Conciliation fail, the Contractor may refer to the Chairman cum Managing Director of the Employer for settlement of such disputes or differences through Arbitration. No disputes or differences shall be referred to Arbitration after expiry of 60 days from the date of notification of the failure of Conciliation."
2. Though on 26.07.2023 an objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, the dispute is non-arbitrable as it comes within the ambit of Clause 49 of the Special Conditions of Contract-I which relates to This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/10/2023 at 21:55:25 excepted matters, but no reply has been filed by the respondent as to how this matter falls in such category. Rather, today, the learned counsel for the respondent has no objection in case an arbitrator is appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
3. On 11.10.2017 a tender was issued by the respondent for the work of supply of machine-crushed stone track ballast of Pakur range. When the completion certificate dated 19.06.2020 was issued, the actual cost was substantially reduced from Rs.28,12,65,747.90/- to Rs.27,41,16,366.60/-. The demand notice dated 13.05.2021 was sent demanding Rs.94,00,800/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum by the petitioner to the respondent.
4. On 30.09.2022 Mr.Vinod Kumar Gupta, was appointed as conciliator but the conciliation failed. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause 48.2.2 (supra) and the respondent rather appointed Mr.Shahzad Shah, Retd. Finance Commissioner as sole arbitrator which was objected by the petitioner.
5. Considering the facts above, I hereby appoint Mr.Pritish Sabharwal, Advocate (Mob.No. 9871878690) as learned sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The rights and contentions of the parties are left open. The arbitral proceedings shall be conducted under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The fee of the learned arbitrator shall be fixed as per IVth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The petition stands disposed of along with pending application(s).
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
OCTOBER 16, 2023 DU This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/10/2023 at 21:55:25