Full Text
Translation output
$-4
{< IN s{
THE HTGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ARB.P. 20712012
BARTRONICS INDIA LTD ..... Petitioner
Ttu'ough Mr.Abhishek Shanna, Adv.
MCD ..... Respondent
Mr.Gaurang Kanth, Adv. for SDMC.
Mr.Kapil Dutt4 Adv. for Mr.Ajay
Arora, Adv. for NDMC and EDMC.
Through
{< IN s{
THE HTGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ARB.P. 20712012
BARTRONICS INDIA LTD ..... Petitioner
Ttu'ough Mr.Abhishek Shanna, Adv.
MCD ..... Respondent
Mr.Gaurang Kanth, Adv. for SDMC.
Mr.Kapil Dutt4 Adv. for Mr.Ajay
Arora, Adv. for NDMC and EDMC.
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH oh 21..02.2013
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointnent of an arbitrator.
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is engaged in the sales of products and services based on Autornatic Identification and Data
Capture (AIDC) technology and E-Goverlance. The respondent invited tenders from interested parties for setting up and rnanaging of 2,000
Governrnent-to-Citizen (G2C) kiosks against advertisernent rights at valious pre-detennined authorized sites. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner ernerged as the successful bidder in the tender and an agreernent dated 19tl'
March, 2009 was executed by the respondent with the petitioner. As per the agreement the respondent was requiled to hand over to the petitioner 200 sites/locations fi'ee fi'om arLy dispute or hindlance for erecting the
,JJ
2013:DHC:8371 d r kiosks/booths and the revenue that was to be earned by the petitioner by advertising on the installed and operational kiosks was to be shaled with respondent as per Revenue Share Model. It was firrther stipulated that in case any particular site was not made available to the successful bidder for installation or that permission for installation of kiosk was not forthcoming, the respondent would allot another site in place of that particular location in the same zone. However, the respondent failed to hand over the originally eannarked 2000 sites and could only manage to hand over 33 sites for the prrposes of installing the kiosks. It is stated in the petition that in addition, another 203 sites were handed over as alternative sites which were not fi'ee fi.om encumbrance. The petitioner was unable to install 300 kiosks within six months due to the respondent's failure to hand over the said 300 sites.
It is stated that the petitioner paid an amount of725,25,00,000/- to the respondent as security deposit for the project. Further upon execution of the agreernent the petitioner ftuther arnounts of (I,26,25,0751'in Malch 2009, <1,26,25,0751- tnJanuary 2010 and <1,26,25,0751- rn January 2010 by three cheques to the respondent. Thereafter various letters were exchanged between the parties. Disputes arose between the parties. On July, 19, 2011, the officials of the petitioner were invited to a meeting to discuss the progress of the project and were verbally infonned by the concerned officials that the agreement had been terminated by the respondent and a letter has been dispatched at the petitioner's office. The petitioner filed a petition gnder Section 9 of the fubination and Conciliation Act, 1996, being o.M.P. No.554/2011, seeking various prayers. After hearing, while disposing of the petition on 18th April, 2012, this Court directed to carry out a joint inspection of the kiosks erected by the petitioner. On 7'h April, 2012
*f t' the petitioner issued a notice to the respondent seeking arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause 28 of the agreernent and requested the petitioner to appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The respondent has failpd to appoint an arbitrator in stipulated period of time.
Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner for appointment of an arbih'ator.
I have heard the submissions of both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. It is cleal that a binding arbitration agreement is in existence between the parties and the claims appear to be live fi'om the correspondence placed on record. Since the respondent has failed to appoint an arbit'ator within stipulated time, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, Justice Sat Pal (Phone No.27653129127654302), a retired Judge of this Court is appointed as sole Albitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out of the agreement dated lgtl' March,
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointnent of an arbitrator.
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is engaged in the sales of products and services based on Autornatic Identification and Data
Capture (AIDC) technology and E-Goverlance. The respondent invited tenders from interested parties for setting up and rnanaging of 2,000
Governrnent-to-Citizen (G2C) kiosks against advertisernent rights at valious pre-detennined authorized sites. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner ernerged as the successful bidder in the tender and an agreernent dated 19tl'
March, 2009 was executed by the respondent with the petitioner. As per the agreement the respondent was requiled to hand over to the petitioner 200 sites/locations fi'ee fi'om arLy dispute or hindlance for erecting the
,JJ
2013:DHC:8371 d r kiosks/booths and the revenue that was to be earned by the petitioner by advertising on the installed and operational kiosks was to be shaled with respondent as per Revenue Share Model. It was firrther stipulated that in case any particular site was not made available to the successful bidder for installation or that permission for installation of kiosk was not forthcoming, the respondent would allot another site in place of that particular location in the same zone. However, the respondent failed to hand over the originally eannarked 2000 sites and could only manage to hand over 33 sites for the prrposes of installing the kiosks. It is stated in the petition that in addition, another 203 sites were handed over as alternative sites which were not fi'ee fi.om encumbrance. The petitioner was unable to install 300 kiosks within six months due to the respondent's failure to hand over the said 300 sites.
It is stated that the petitioner paid an amount of725,25,00,000/- to the respondent as security deposit for the project. Further upon execution of the agreernent the petitioner ftuther arnounts of (I,26,25,0751'in Malch 2009, <1,26,25,0751- tnJanuary 2010 and <1,26,25,0751- rn January 2010 by three cheques to the respondent. Thereafter various letters were exchanged between the parties. Disputes arose between the parties. On July, 19, 2011, the officials of the petitioner were invited to a meeting to discuss the progress of the project and were verbally infonned by the concerned officials that the agreement had been terminated by the respondent and a letter has been dispatched at the petitioner's office. The petitioner filed a petition gnder Section 9 of the fubination and Conciliation Act, 1996, being o.M.P. No.554/2011, seeking various prayers. After hearing, while disposing of the petition on 18th April, 2012, this Court directed to carry out a joint inspection of the kiosks erected by the petitioner. On 7'h April, 2012
*f t' the petitioner issued a notice to the respondent seeking arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause 28 of the agreernent and requested the petitioner to appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The respondent has failpd to appoint an arbitrator in stipulated period of time.
Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner for appointment of an arbih'ator.
I have heard the submissions of both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. It is cleal that a binding arbitration agreement is in existence between the parties and the claims appear to be live fi'om the correspondence placed on record. Since the respondent has failed to appoint an arbit'ator within stipulated time, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, Justice Sat Pal (Phone No.27653129127654302), a retired Judge of this Court is appointed as sole Albitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out of the agreement dated lgtl' March,
ORDER
2009. The parties also agreed that the arbitration be taken place under the aegis of Rules of the Delhi High Court Albination Centre. The fees of the Arbiftator be also paid under the. said Rules. Parties shall appear before Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre on 8tr'March, 2013. Sole Albitrator shall give prior notice to both the parties before colnlnencing the proceedings. The petition stands disposed of. A copy of the order be communicated to the sole Arbitrator for information, Delhi High Court Arbination Cenfi'e and also to both parties. ffictrtti\?^E""?,