Full Text
Translation output
s-7
* INTt{EIIIGI{COURToFDELHIATNEwDELHx
ARB.P. 49012012
BHAYANA BUILDERS PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Thlough Mr.Arun Kumar Vatrn4 Adv' with
Ms.Mansi Wadhera, Adv'
VEfSUS
LOTUS VALLEY EDUCATION SOCIETY ..... RESPONdENT
Thlough Mr.R.S. Nanda, Adv' with
Mr.AditYa GuPta, Adv.
* INTt{EIIIGI{COURToFDELHIATNEwDELHx
ARB.P. 49012012
BHAYANA BUILDERS PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Thlough Mr.Arun Kumar Vatrn4 Adv' with
Ms.Mansi Wadhera, Adv'
VEfSUS
LOTUS VALLEY EDUCATION SOCIETY ..... RESPONdENT
Thlough Mr.R.S. Nanda, Adv' with
Mr.AditYa GuPta, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'ELE MR.. .]USTICE MANMO}IAN SNGI{
OR.DER.
, 04.04.20n3
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section
11(6) of the Albitlation and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an
Arbitrator.
The case of the petitioner is that an agreement dated 13"' April' 2010 was entered into between the parties for construction of Lotus Valley
International School Building at Sector 61, Gurgaon' As per the agreement' the petitioner was entitled to be paid {7,06,16,5721'' It is stated in tite petition that as a result of the failure on the part of the respondent to fulfil rts obligations under the contract, the work got delayed and continued beyond the stipulated period of contract' It is fuilher stated that suddenly tlre respondent directed the petitioner not to complete the works and took or er the site when work of approxirnately T1,57,00,000/- was still incornplete and the petitioner incured losses. The details of the claims are mentioneri in para 7 of the petition. As the settletnent coulcl not be an'ived at between tire
2013:DHC:8374
\ f
-/t parties, the petitioner sent a notice dated 30'r' octob er,2012 for appointment of sole Arbitrator. The respondent sent a reply dated 7,1' Novernber, 2012 whereby the respondent failed to appoint the albitrator. Therefore, the present petition has been filed. No reply has been filed. There is no selous opposition to the prayer made in the petition.
As far as agreernent befween the parties is concerned, there is no dispute raised by the respondent qua the existence of the arbitration clause in agreelnent dated l3'r' April, 2010.
From the aforesaid, it is clear that a binding albitlation agreement is in existence between the parties and the clairns appear to be live fi.orn the corlespondence placed on record. Accordingly, the disputes ar.e refened to
Justice M.K. Shanna (Retd. Judge of Supreme Court) (Mobile
No'9818000190) to adjudicate the dispute berween the parries. Fee of the learned sole a'bih'ator shall also be paid as per rules thereof. The
Albitfator appointed by the Delhi High Court A'bitration Cenh.e shall give prior notice before co*unencing the proceedings. The petition stands disposed of. A copy of the order be sent to Delhi High Courr Arbitr.ation
Centre. Dasti.
APR.TL A4,20t3/ik e,J L.-
-at rvan{vrbrnNtnYctft. /
2013:DHC:8374
OR.DER.
, 04.04.20n3
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section
11(6) of the Albitlation and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an
Arbitrator.
The case of the petitioner is that an agreement dated 13"' April' 2010 was entered into between the parties for construction of Lotus Valley
International School Building at Sector 61, Gurgaon' As per the agreement' the petitioner was entitled to be paid {7,06,16,5721'' It is stated in tite petition that as a result of the failure on the part of the respondent to fulfil rts obligations under the contract, the work got delayed and continued beyond the stipulated period of contract' It is fuilher stated that suddenly tlre respondent directed the petitioner not to complete the works and took or er the site when work of approxirnately T1,57,00,000/- was still incornplete and the petitioner incured losses. The details of the claims are mentioneri in para 7 of the petition. As the settletnent coulcl not be an'ived at between tire
2013:DHC:8374
\ f
-/t parties, the petitioner sent a notice dated 30'r' octob er,2012 for appointment of sole Arbitrator. The respondent sent a reply dated 7,1' Novernber, 2012 whereby the respondent failed to appoint the albitrator. Therefore, the present petition has been filed. No reply has been filed. There is no selous opposition to the prayer made in the petition.
As far as agreernent befween the parties is concerned, there is no dispute raised by the respondent qua the existence of the arbitration clause in agreelnent dated l3'r' April, 2010.
From the aforesaid, it is clear that a binding albitlation agreement is in existence between the parties and the clairns appear to be live fi.orn the corlespondence placed on record. Accordingly, the disputes ar.e refened to
Justice M.K. Shanna (Retd. Judge of Supreme Court) (Mobile
No'9818000190) to adjudicate the dispute berween the parries. Fee of the learned sole a'bih'ator shall also be paid as per rules thereof. The
Albitfator appointed by the Delhi High Court A'bitration Cenh.e shall give prior notice before co*unencing the proceedings. The petition stands disposed of. A copy of the order be sent to Delhi High Courr Arbitr.ation
Centre. Dasti.
APR.TL A4,20t3/ik e,J L.-
-at rvan{vrbrnNtnYctft. /
2013:DHC:8374
JUDGMENT