Jharkhand High Court
Ddf Consultants Pvt. Ltd vs Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure ... on 12 March, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Arbitration Application No. 15 of 2023
---------------
DDF Consultants Pvt. Ltd., a Private limited company duly incorporated under the companies act having its registered office at 501, B-9, ITL Twin Tower, Netaji Subhash Palace, Pitampura, New Delhi- 110034, through its duly authorized representative Kumar Ritesh, aged about 46 years, s/o Shri Ashok Kumar Sinha, office at DDF Consultants Pvt. Ltd., 501, B-9, ITL Twin Tower, Netaji Subhash Palace, P04 P.S-Pitampura Pitampura, New Delhi-110034. ..........Petitioner Versus Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd. (JUIDCO Ltd.), through its Principal Secretary, having its office at Room No. 411. Urban Development Department Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand-853004 and also at 3rd Floor, Pragati Sadan, Kutchery Chowk, P.O and P.S.-G.P.O. District- Ranchi-1, Jharkhand .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Sahay, Advocate (through V.C) Miss Amrita Sinha, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate
-------------------
Order No.7/Dated: 12th March 2024 DDF Consultants Pvt. Ltd. has moved this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, "the AC Act") for resolution of the dispute which cropped up with Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd. (in short, "JUIDCO Ltd.").
2. The petitioner-Company has pleaded that in connection to the Contract No.150 dated 29th December 2016 and Contract No.193 dated 13th June 2017 serious disputes arose between the parties mainly for the reason that the Dwelling Units were not allotted to the petitioner-Company as per the agreed terms. In connection therewith, a meeting was convened under the Chairmanship of the Director of the Municipal administration and a decision was taken that the existing agreement shall be revised and supplementary agreement(s) shall be issued based on the decision reflected 2 Arbitration Application No.15 of 2023 in the Minutes of Meeting dated 4th January 2019. The grievance of the petitioner-Company still remained unaddressed and therefore it issued a notice under section 21 of the AC Act on 8th February 2023.
3. Now, objections are taken by JUIDCO Ltd. to the present Arbitration Application on several grounds. One of the grounds is that the petitioner-Company did not exhaust the dispute resolution mechanism under Clause 21 of the aforementioned Contracts and, therefore, this Arbitration Application is not maintainable.
4. In the counter-affidavit filed in the present proceeding, the JUIDCO Ltd. has stated as under:
"19. That it is stated that under clause 21 there are three stages of dispute resolution as mentioned in the Agreement No. 150 dated 29.12.2016 (for Financial Year 2015-2016) and Agreement No. 193 dated 13.06.2017 (for Financial Year 2016- 2017) executed between the respondent and the petitioner which are amicable settlement, negotiation and/or mediation and arbitration. Therefore, it is humbly stated that the Arbitration Agreement is not maintainable as the petitioner has skipped two modes available for dispute resolution in the agreement and directly asked to invoke arbitration clause through this application. It is still open for the petitioner to approach the Principal Secretary, UD&HD as per the terms of settlement to ventilate his grievance and if that is done the same shall be considered accordingly. Clause 21 of the Agreement reads as under: -
"21. Dispute Resolution 21.1-Amicable Settlement The Parties shall use their best efforts to settle amicably all disputes arising out of or in connection with this Contract or the interpretation thereof.
21.2-Negotiation and/or Mediation In case the dispute is not resolved amicably, the matter shall be resolved through negotiation and/or mediation by the Principal Secretary/Secretary, Urban Development Department".
5. Having regard to the above stand taken by the JUIDCO Ltd. that the petitioner-Company can "still" go for the dispute resolution under Clause 21, without going into the other objections raised by the JUIDCO Ltd., this Court is of the opinion that the powers under section 11(6) of the AC Act cannot be exercised at this stage. The present Arbitration Application is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner-Company to approach the Designated Authority under Clause 21 in respect of its grievances, within 30 days.
6. We would however add that this Court has not looked into and considered the merits of the rival claims and Arbitration Application No.15 3 Arbitration Application No.15 of 2023 of 2023 is disposed of on the basis of the statement made by JUIDCO Ltd. in paragraph no.19 of its counter-affidavit. We may indicate that towards amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties the Designated Authority shall invite proposal(s) from the petitioner-Company and would offer sufficient opportunity to reflect on the proposal of JUIDCO Ltd., if any. We may further add that the dispute resolution mechanism under Clause 21 does not provide a time- limit but it is expected that on filing of the representation by the petitioner-Company a decision thereon is arrived at within eight weeks.
7. Arbitration Application No.15 of 2023 is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) Sudhir/