M/S Siemens Healthcare Pvt Ltd & Anr vs The Chief General Manager, Hscc India ... on 15 January, 2021

[Cites 4, Cited by 3]

Delhi High Court - Orders

M/S Siemens Healthcare Pvt Ltd & Anr vs The Chief General Manager, Hscc India ... on 15 January, 2021

Bench: Vibhu Bakhru

$~20
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      ARB.P. 476/2020
       M/S SIEMENS HEALTHCARE PVT LTD
       & ANR.                         ..... Petitioners
                          Through:     Mr Hemant Malhotra, Advocate.

                          versus

       THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,
       HSCC INDIA LTD & ORS.              ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr Saurabh Mishra, Advocate for
                              R-1.
                              Counsel for R-2 & 3 (appearance not
                              given).

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
               ORDER

% 15.01.2021 [Hearing held through videoconferencing] IA No. 9349/2020

1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

ARB.P. 476/2020

3. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the Act'), inter alia, praying that an arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the parties.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the Notification of Award dated 02.12.2016, whereby respondent no.1 acting on behalf of respondent no.3 had issued the order for supply of installation and commissioning of medical equipment as specified therein. The General Conditions of Contract contain an arbitration clause, which is reproduced below: -

"30. Resolution of disputes 30.1 If dispute or difference of any kind shall arise between the purchaser and the supplier in connection with or relating to the contract, the parties shall make every effort to resolve the same amicably by mutual consultations.

30.2 If the parties fail to resolve their dispute or difference by such mutual consultation within twenty-one days of its occurrence, then, unless otherwise provided in the SCC, either the purchaser/consignee or the supplier may give notice to the other party of its intention to commence arbitration, as hereinafter provided the applicable arbitration procedure will be as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 of India. In the case of a dispute or difference arising between the purchaser/consignee and a domestic supplier relating to any matter arising out of or connected with the contract, such dispute or difference shall be referred to the sole arbitration of an officer in the Ministry of Law and Justice, appointed to be the arbitrator by the Director General Medical Education and Research, Govt. of Haryana, Panchkula. The award of the arbitrator and shall be final and binding on the parties to the contract subject to the provision that the Arbitrator shall give reasoned award in case the value of claim in reference exceeds Rs. One lakhs (Rs.1,00,000/-) 30.3 Venue of Arbitration: The venue of arbitration shall be the place from where the contract has been issued, i.e, New Delhi, India.

30.4 jurisdiction of the court will be from the place where the place from where the tender enquiry document has been issued, i.e, New Delhi"

5. In view of the aforesaid dispute that have arisen between the parties, the petitioner issued a notice dated 23.12.2019, requesting that the payments withheld be released or, in the alternative, the matter be referred to arbitration.

6. It is stated that the petitioner did not receive any response to the same. Admittedly respondent no. 3 has not appointed the arbitrator.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents do not dispute the existence of the arbitration clause or that a notice dated 23.12.2019 invoking the same was issued by the petitioner.

8. However, the learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 submits that there are certain issues between respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 3 regarding payments to be made to the petitioner and if the said issues are reconciled, the petitioners' grievance may also be settled.

9. The learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 requests that two months' time be granted to the parties to try and amicably resolve the disputes.

10. In view of the above, this Court considers it apposite to allow the present petition. Accordingly, Mr Mahavir Singhal, ADJ (Retd.), Mobile No. 9650758886 is appointed as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the petitioner and respondent nos. 1 and 3 in connection with the Notification of Award dated 02.12.2016.

11. This is subject to the arbitrator making the necessary disclosure under Section 12(1) of the Act and not being ineligible under Section 12(5) of the Act.

12. Considering the petitioner's request that the parties be afforded two months' time to amicably resolve the disputes, this Court considers it apposite to direct that the appointment of the arbitrator shall not take place till two months from date.

13. In the meanwhile, if the parties are able to resolve their disputes, they shall communicate the same to the learned arbitrator. However, in the event they are unable to do so, the arbitrator shall proceed with the arbitration.

14. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J JANUARY 15, 2021 RK

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders