Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Thereafter, MCD issued a letter dated 14.02.2017 calling upon Almass to deposit a sum of ₹11,78,693/-, which according to MCD was outstanding and payable by Almass. The dispute relating to the said claim was not resolved.

10. In the aforesaid backdrop, the Commissioner of MCD (at the material time Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation) issued a notification dated 05.05.2017 appointing a former officer of the Indian Administrative Services as the sole arbitrator. Thereafter, MCD filed a statement of claim before the Arbitral Tribunal on 25.10.2018, which was more than one and a half year after the Commissioner, MCD had appointed the arbitrator. The Arbitral Tribunal made the impugned award on 20.01.2020. Perusal of the impugned award does not indicate that the learned Arbitrator had made any disclosure as required under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [A&C Act]. However, the impugned award does indicate that MCD had reported that it had served a copy of the statement of claim to Almass. However, Almass did not join the arbitral proceedings on the date fixed, that is, on 25.10.2018. The Arbitral Tribunal decided to proceed ex parte and rendered the impugned award, whereby it awarded part of the claim to the extent of ₹8,96,030/- in favour of MCD along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 07.03.2016 (the date of termination of the contract) till the date of the award. However, the Arbitral Tribunal further directed that if the awarded amount was not paid within ninety days of the issuance of the award, the interest would be payable till the actual realisation of the amount. The Arbitral Tribunal also awarded arbitration costs quantified at ₹1,11,000/- and directed that the same would also be paid with interest at the rate of 9% per annum if the payment was not made within the period of three months.

17. It is material to note that the Special Leave Petition [being SLP(C) Diary No. 47322/2023] preferred against the decision of this court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Narendra Kumar Prajapat: 2023:DHC:3705-DB (supra) was also dismissed by an order dated 12.12.2023, which is reproduced below:

"Delay condoned.

From paragraph 6 of the impugned order, it appears to be an admitted position that the Arbitrator unilaterally appointed by the petitioner was ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator by virtue of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Hence, in view of this particular factual position, no case for interference is made out in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.