Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

ANU MALHOTRA, J.

CM.APPL.1249/2019 (Ex.) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM (M) 44/2019

1. The petitioner Delhi Development Authority vide the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks directions that the impugned award dated 01.12.2017 of the Additional Secretary and Appellate Authority, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs in terms of the provision of the Permanent Machinery of Arbitration (PMA) under the aegis of the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Department of Public Enterprises, vide which an appeal filed by the petitioner herein as appellant in Appeal No.02/AS(RY)/2017 in case No. PMA/Dr.GR/17/2012 passed by the Sole Arbitrator,- was disposed of whereby the Appellate Authority whilst accepting the liability of the appellant herein to pay Rs.79,90,022/- to the respondent modified the rate of interest awarded by the Arbitrator as being 15% p.a. to 8% p.a. from the date of award passed by the Sole Arbitrator with further directions to the effect that in case the entire awarded amount was not paid within the period of two months from the date of receipt of the award, the appellant would pay the entire awarded amount along with interest @ 10% p.a. till the date of realization and thus the award in respect of the interest payable by the petitioner to the respondent stand amended.

"The Permanent Machinery of Arbitration (PMA) had been set in place earlier than the judgment in the ONGC case, as noticed in Northern Coalfields (supra) in March, 1989. Yet in the summary contained in para 23, this Court, instead of appreciating that the Committee on Disputes was set up judicially, and ran parallel to the Permanent Machinery of Arbitration, appears to have combined the two in requiring permission from the CoD to refer disputes already finally decided by the PMA to a litigative process while the CoD was in place, as was held in para 24 of the said judgment."

with directions that "There shall be an interim stay of the arbitration proceedings before Hon'ble Mr. Vijender Jain (Retd. Chief Justice)"and thus a restraint having been granted of the arbitral proceedings that had been invoked by the Division Bench of this Court.

9. Vide the verdict of this Court in Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. In Ex.P. 316/2012 and Ex. Appl. (OS) 691/2012, a verdict dated 15.03.2017 whilst referring to the aspect of question of the enforceability of an award under the Permanent Machinery of Arbitration (PMA) and the applicability of the provision of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when a petition had been filed under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for enforcement of an award dated 17.02.2011 as rendered by the Arbitrator appointed under the PMA on a similar clause in the contract between the parties which read to the effect:

28. So far as the part in the arbitration clause in the said agreement regarding the non-applicability of the Act of 1996 is concerned, we consider that it is void and the parties cannot by themselves exclude the statute itself which is being drafted by the Legislature to look after the arbitration matters."

and thus reference was made in Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. (supra) to observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Northern Coalfield Ltd (supra) qua summarization of law in para-22 already adverted to hereinabove and it was observed to the effect that in view of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Northern Coalfield Ltd (supra), the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in M/s IRCON International Ltd. (supra) was no longer in force as the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 had been held to be inapplicable to the proceedings under the PMA and the petition for enforcement of the award under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was not maintainable.