M/S Ajab Singh & Co v. Delhi Development Authority

Delhi High Court · 13 May 2013 · 2013:DHC:2474
Manmohan Singh
Arb.P.No.388/2012
2013:DHC:2474
civil petition_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court appointed a mutually agreed retired SE as sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to resolve contract disputes between a building contractor and DDA.

Full Text
Translation output
Arb.P.No.388/2012 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Order delivered on: May 13, 2013 Arb.P.No.388/2012
M/S AJAB SINGH & CO ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Bhupesh Narula, Adv. with Mr.Yash Tandon, Adv.
VERSUS
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Amitabh Marwaha, Adv. with Mr.J.P. Sharma, Executive Engineer.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral)
JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an independent arbitrator.

2. Brief facts as culled out from the petition are that the petitioner is a building contractor. The respondent invited tenders for the work of up-gradation and beautification of Coronation Park at Burari Road, near Kingsway Camp, Delhi, sub-head: External Development (Landscaping & Plumbing Work), Construction of Interpretation Centre & Restaurant Building including their plumbing and internal electrification works. The work was awarded to the petitioner vide award letter dated 29th June, 2011 for which an agreement was also executed between the parties vide Agreement No.03/ND-3/DDA/2011-12. As per the contract, the stipulated 2013:DHC:2474 date of start was 8th July, 2011 and that of the completion was 7th April,

2012. However, the work could not be completed within the stipulated time due to non-availability of site, drawings & decisions and other hindrances and breaches attributable to the respondents. The petitioner through its letter dated 31st May, 2012 demanded the claims as per clause 50 of the agreement, followed by two more letters dated 18th June, 2012 and 19th July, 2012, but no reply was given by the respondent. The petitioner vide letter dated 20th August, 2012 requested the Engineer Member, DDA to appoint an arbitrator to resolve the disputes, but to no effect. Hence, this petition.

3. The petition was first time listed before the Court on 15th October, 2012 when the learned counsel for the respondent also appeared. The respondent was granted time to file the reply. No reply to the petition has been filed by the respondent. When the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner states that since it is technical matter, Mr. A.K. Kashyap, retired SE, be appointed as the sole Arbitrator. Learned counsel for the DDA, upon instructions, states that the respondent has no objection if Mr. A.K. Kashyap, retired SE, be appointed as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

4. As agreed, Mr. A.K. Kashyap, retired SE, DDA, Flat No.117, Karishma Apartments, Plot No.27, I.P. Extension, Delhi-110092, Mob.9312221307, is appointed as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences between the parties arising out of the agreement mentioned above. As agreed by both counsel at present fees of the learned Arbitrator is fixed at ` 2,00,000/- to be shared by both the parties in equal proportion.

5. The petition is accordingly disposed of.

6. Copy of this order be communicated to the learned Arbitrator. Copies of the same be also given dasti to the parties.

JUDGE MAY 13, 2013