IWS Vishwakarma Projects (India) Pvt Ltd v. M/s Coastal Projects Pvt Ltd & Ors

(2) & (6) of the Arbin'ation and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appoinnnent of an arbitator. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.l had awarded the contract to the petitioner for execution of work of the slip fonning concreting and reinforcernent work of surge shaft of dia 14.5rn and 175rn deep of Maneri Bhali Hydro Elecfiic Project Stage-II vide work order dated Btl' April, 2005 and the respondents No.2 and 3 are the officials of the respondent No.1. It is further stated that the petitioner cornpleted the work of slip fogmng concreting and concrcte lining and reinforcernent work of the Surge Shaft to the satisfaction of the respondents. 2013:DHC:8053.( \ v The petitioner raised 1$, 2nd and 3'd R.A. Bills during the execution of work and after cornpletion of the said work, the petitioner raised final bill for a surn of {1,68,9I,564.35 dated 28tr' September, 2007 and the respondents No.1 to 3 paid a surn of {1,18,63,036/- out of the total amount f final bill and outstanding balance amount is T50,28,528.35. The petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 24tl' October, 2008 to the respondents and dernanded the said amount along with interest @24 per annrff! plant and machinery which was held by the respondents and rnonthly rent of the plant and rnachinery @1,00,000/- per rnonth. However, they did not pay any heed to the request of the petitioner and sent a vague reply. They invoked clause No.6 of the "ottrer terms and conditions" of the work order by letter dated 14tr' March, 2009 and appointed a Conciliator namely Sh.Thakur Dass Khanduja to resolve the dispute. As the dispute could not be resolved arnicably by the Conciliator for three yea"rs, the petitioner got issued a termination notice dated 16th April, 2012 for the conciliation proceedings. After receiving the termination notice, the Conciliator concluded that the conciliation cannot succeed. By letter dated 14th May, 2OI[2] the petitioner invoked the albitation clause of the work order and appointed and norninated Mr.Subhash Chandra Gupt[4] Advocate as the Albin'ator on its behalf. By notice dated 18th June, 2012, the respondents were called upon to appoint an Arbin'ator on their behalf. Despite service of said notice, the resilondents failed to appoint the Albit'ator..Therefore, the present petition has been filed. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the albitration clause contained in the work order/confiact. As agreed, Justice Deepak Verma, (retired Judge of Supreme Court) { F1/ ( Mob.97l7ig352I, Bl[4], Gitanjali Enclave, Ground Floor, Near Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-l10017, is appointed as a sole Arbitator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties to be conducted under the aegis of Delhi High Court Arbination Cenfie. The fee shall be paid to the sole Arbitator as per rules maintained by Delhi High Court Arbit'ation Cente. The petition stands disposed of. A copy of this order be communicated to the learned A.rbiffator as well as the Secretary to ttre Arbination Cenfte forthwith. Copies.of the same be also given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties. nmXtrsK-.x/ MARCH 20,20131ik (