Delhi High Court - Orders
Shri Pratyush Chandra Subudhi vs M/S Feedback Infra Private Ltd on 11 May, 2021
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ARB.P. 36/2021
SHRI PRATYUSH CHANDRA SUBUDHI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr Janmejaya Ray, Advocate.
versus
M/S FEEDBACK INFRA PRIVATE LTD. ..... Respondent
Through Mr Akanksha Kwatra, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 11.05.2021 [Hearing held through videoconferencing]
1. By an order dated 08.03.3021, the parties were referred to Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent was endeavouring to resolve the disputes amicably. The leaned counsel appearing for the parties state that the mediation has not been successful.
2. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter „A&C Act‟), inter alia, praying that arbitrators be appointed by the parties to constitute an Arbitral Tribunal.
3. The petitioner is stated to be carrying on the business of Civil Contractor and Civil Survey Work. He also states that he provides project consultancy.
Signature Not Verified digitally signed by:DUSHYANT RAWAL4. On 11.01.2016, the respondent company had placed a work order (hereafter the Work Order) on the petitioner to execute certain works at Vishakhapatnam and Krishna Districts of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner claims that it had finished the work assigned to it and a sum of ₹6,98,817/- is outstanding and payable against the work completed. Since the respondent had failed and neglected to pay the amount, the petitioner filed a suit (C.S. (M) No. 173/2018) before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar.
5. In the said proceedings, the respondent had filed an application under Section 8 of the A&C Act praying that the parties be referred to arbitration in view of the arbitration clause contained in the Work Order. The respondent‟s contention was accepted and by an order dated 03.01.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar parties were referred to Arbitration.
6. Admittedly, the Work Order contains an arbitration clause that reads as under:-
"24. Resolving Disputes Any work related dispute between FIPL and the 'Consultant' shall be resolved initially by mutual discussions, failing which matter shall be resolved by arbitration as per the latest Indian Arbitration and Reconciliation Act. The venue of arbitration shall be Delhi."
7. In view of the above, the petitioner issued a notice dated 25.01.2019 invoking the arbitration clause and called upon the respondent to suggest the name of the arbitrator. The petitioner also proceeded to appoint its arbitrator. The respondent did not respond to the said notice and the petitioner filed an Signature Not Verified digitally signed by:DUSHYANT RAWAL application [ARB P. No. 25/2019] under Section 11 of the A&C Act in the High Court of Orissa with a direction that the respondent be directed to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the parties. However, that petition was disposed of on the ground that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition as in terms of Clause 24 of the Work Order dated 11.01.2019, the place of arbitration is Delhi. It is in the aforesaid context, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
8. It is apparent from the above that the disputes have arisen between the parties. The said disputes have remained unresolved. There is also no dispute as to the existence of the arbitration agreement (arbitration clause) and that the petitioner had invoked the same.
9. In view of the above, this Court considers it apposite to allow the present petition. Accordingly, Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Advocate (Mobile No.9810674872) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
10. This is subject to the Arbitrator making the necessary disclosure under Section 12(1) of the A&C Act and not being ineligible under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act.
11. The parties are at liberty to approach the Arbitrator for securing his consent and disclosure as required under Section 12(1) of the A&C Act. Let the same be furnished before this Court before the next date of hearing.
12. List on 27.05.2021.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J MAY 11, 2021 pkv Signature Not Verified digitally signed by:DUSHYANT RAWAL