Full Text
Translation output
S
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ARB,P. 73/2013 SWEKA POWER-TECH ENGINEERS PVT LTD .....Petitioner
Through Mr.Gaurav Sarin, Adv. with Ms.Charul Sarin and Ms.Veera
Angrish, Advs.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ARB,P. 73/2013 SWEKA POWER-TECH ENGINEERS PVT LTD .....Petitioner
Through Mr.Gaurav Sarin, Adv. with Ms.Charul Sarin and Ms.Veera
Angrish, Advs.
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION .....Respondent
Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Adv. with Mr. Susheel, Adv.
Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Adv. with Mr. Susheel, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SLNGH
02.04.2013 The present petitions have been filed by the petitioner under Section
11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole
Arbitrator.
The case of the petitioner is that it specializes in the manufacture and supply of decorative poles, bollards, decorative lighting fixture, electric pole, outdoor lighting like high mast, signage mast, mobile mast etc. The petitioner was awarded the work of improvement and up-gradation of the surrounding areas of hotels and guesthouses at Karol Bagh zoiie and up- gradation of street lighting arrangements vide Agreement No.5/EE(Proj)-
Elect dated 22 July, 2010 for a contractual amount of Rs.6,36,19,420/-.
The time for completion of the project was six months i.e. upto 25.01.2011.
It is stated in the petition that as per the agreement, the work contract value was Rs.6.36 crores whereas the work got executed by the petitioner
2013:DHC:8149 company was only to the tune of Rs.2.46 crores but the balance work was not intimated/restricted, which has resulted in loss to the petitioner company on account of reduction of scope of work. It is stated that the work of provision of street lighting was done by the petitioner in conformance of the terms and conditions of the agreement, i.e., within the stipulated and complete in all respects. It is stated that even the third party evaluation report dated 24.02.20 11 by the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi had given its finding that the work executed by the petitioner company is satisfactoiy. Therefore, the entire work as per the work order had been executed to the satisfaction of the M.CD. Despite providing efficient service and fulfilling all the obligations as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the petitioner has not got payment from MCD.
The petitioner wrote to the Superintending Engineer(s) (Electrical) of the North Zone of the MCD vide letter dated SPTE.MCD.08.27 dated
27.08.2012 in terms of clause 25(i) of the agreement and requested for payment of dues as per final bill Invoice No.1593 dated 05.04.20 11. The petitioner also claims that as per the agreement, the security deposit of fl9,88,382/- had to be released within one year of completion of work but till date which has not been released. Further, a sum of Rs.5,48,7071- has been claimed by the petitioner towards inspection of materials at various testing laboratories and towards. fee paid towards third party inspections, which ought to have been reimbursed by the MCD.
It is stated in the petition that despite letters dated 27.08.20 12 and
15.10.2012 addressed to the Superintending Engineer (Electrical) and Chief
Engineer (Electrical) respectively, the respondent failed to act within the stipulated time period. Finally, the petitioner issued a notice for appointment of Arbitrator to the Commissioner of the respondent vide letter dated
29.11.20 12 and requested to refer the disputes for adjudication by a Sole
Arbitrator. However, no response whatsoever was received from the respondent. Therefore the present petition has been filed.
Notice of the petitions was issued to the respondent. Without admitting the allegation made in the petition, the learned counsel for the respondent states that his client has no objection if the prayer made in the petition be allowed provided the respondent be given chance to summon requisite documents which are lying before the CBI. He is agreeable that
Justice R.C. Chopra (Retired) is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. With regard to his two submissions, the same are allowed. Thus, as agreed by both parties, Justice
R.C. Chopra (Retd.) (Mobile No.9818097777/99714 11226) is appointed as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The fees of the learned Arbitrator shall be payable according to the schedule of fees fixed by Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre under its rules. The petition disposed of A copy of the order be sent to the learned sole Arbitrator and also to give dasti to both the parties.
APRIL 02, 2013 jk t
02.04.2013 The present petitions have been filed by the petitioner under Section
11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole
Arbitrator.
The case of the petitioner is that it specializes in the manufacture and supply of decorative poles, bollards, decorative lighting fixture, electric pole, outdoor lighting like high mast, signage mast, mobile mast etc. The petitioner was awarded the work of improvement and up-gradation of the surrounding areas of hotels and guesthouses at Karol Bagh zoiie and up- gradation of street lighting arrangements vide Agreement No.5/EE(Proj)-
Elect dated 22 July, 2010 for a contractual amount of Rs.6,36,19,420/-.
The time for completion of the project was six months i.e. upto 25.01.2011.
It is stated in the petition that as per the agreement, the work contract value was Rs.6.36 crores whereas the work got executed by the petitioner
2013:DHC:8149 company was only to the tune of Rs.2.46 crores but the balance work was not intimated/restricted, which has resulted in loss to the petitioner company on account of reduction of scope of work. It is stated that the work of provision of street lighting was done by the petitioner in conformance of the terms and conditions of the agreement, i.e., within the stipulated and complete in all respects. It is stated that even the third party evaluation report dated 24.02.20 11 by the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi had given its finding that the work executed by the petitioner company is satisfactoiy. Therefore, the entire work as per the work order had been executed to the satisfaction of the M.CD. Despite providing efficient service and fulfilling all the obligations as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the petitioner has not got payment from MCD.
The petitioner wrote to the Superintending Engineer(s) (Electrical) of the North Zone of the MCD vide letter dated SPTE.MCD.08.27 dated
27.08.2012 in terms of clause 25(i) of the agreement and requested for payment of dues as per final bill Invoice No.1593 dated 05.04.20 11. The petitioner also claims that as per the agreement, the security deposit of fl9,88,382/- had to be released within one year of completion of work but till date which has not been released. Further, a sum of Rs.5,48,7071- has been claimed by the petitioner towards inspection of materials at various testing laboratories and towards. fee paid towards third party inspections, which ought to have been reimbursed by the MCD.
It is stated in the petition that despite letters dated 27.08.20 12 and
15.10.2012 addressed to the Superintending Engineer (Electrical) and Chief
Engineer (Electrical) respectively, the respondent failed to act within the stipulated time period. Finally, the petitioner issued a notice for appointment of Arbitrator to the Commissioner of the respondent vide letter dated
29.11.20 12 and requested to refer the disputes for adjudication by a Sole
Arbitrator. However, no response whatsoever was received from the respondent. Therefore the present petition has been filed.
Notice of the petitions was issued to the respondent. Without admitting the allegation made in the petition, the learned counsel for the respondent states that his client has no objection if the prayer made in the petition be allowed provided the respondent be given chance to summon requisite documents which are lying before the CBI. He is agreeable that
Justice R.C. Chopra (Retired) is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. With regard to his two submissions, the same are allowed. Thus, as agreed by both parties, Justice
R.C. Chopra (Retd.) (Mobile No.9818097777/99714 11226) is appointed as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The fees of the learned Arbitrator shall be payable according to the schedule of fees fixed by Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre under its rules. The petition disposed of A copy of the order be sent to the learned sole Arbitrator and also to give dasti to both the parties.
APRIL 02, 2013 jk t
JUDGMENT