Full Text
Translation output
3.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF
ARB.P. r36l20tl
M/S DUBEY ELECTRIC WORKS
Through:
DELHI AT NEW DELHI..... Petitioner
Mr. Vivekanand, Advocate. ri
VCTSUS
AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING
COMMITTEE & ORS
Through: None.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF
ARB.P. r36l20tl
M/S DUBEY ELECTRIC WORKS
Through:
DELHI AT NEW DELHI..... Petitioner
Mr. Vivekanand, Advocate. ri
VCTSUS
AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING
COMMITTEE & ORS
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI.,... Respondents
14.10.2011
Despite pass-over, none appears for the respondents. No reply has been filed by the respondents. On the last date, Mr. Charan Singh, A.E,(Electrical) had appeared on behalf of the respondents and sought time to engage a counsel and file the reply. In view of the aforesaid position, I proceed to dispose of the petition, The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner entered into a contract with the respondent for supply, installation, testing & commissioning of distribution control panel and cables for single point
HT connection of 3.50 K.W. for NF on Ph-l and ll Azadpur on
06.11.2009. The agreement was preceded by a letter of Intent dated
L2.L0.2009'issued by the respondent in response to the petitioner's tender. The respondent accepted the petitioner's bid for the aforesaid work for a total amount of Rs.10,28,1981-. From the contract
2011:DHC:19387
\ tv document, which has been produced before the Court, it appears that the parties adopted the specifications of GPWD for the time being in force, which were agreed to form an integral part and sole repository of the terms & conditions of the contract. clause 25 0f the GPWD
General Terms & Conditions contains the arbitration agreement, which empowers the Chief Engineer to make the appointment of an Arbitrator in case disputes arise between the parties. According to the petitioner, disputes have arisen between the parties as the respondent has terminated the contract vide a letter dated 17 '12.2009 which, according to the petitioner, is illegal, The petitioner invoked the arbitration agreement vide a notice dated 16.03.2011. The said notice was addressed to the Chief Engineer Clo, Secretary, APMC. The petitioner stated in the said communication that since there is no post of Chief Engineer in APMC, the Secretary, APMC may suggest the names of the three retired Chief Engineers of CPWD for the petitioner's consent and appointment aS an Arbitrator by mutual consent.
According to the petitioner, the said notice was sent by Registered AD post. Despite the said notice, the Secretary of the APMC has failed to act in the matter. Consequently, this petition has beeh preferred.
From the aforesaid, prime facie, it appears that the parties entered into the aforesaid contract which contains the arbitration agreement in Clause 25 of the General Terms & Conditions of CPWD which have been adopted in the contract in question. lt also appears i, ''r
V that disputes have arisen between the parties in view of termination of the contract of the respondent on 17.12.2009. The disputes appear to be live. The respondent has not acted in terms of the notice dated
16.03.2011 whereby the arbitration agreement has been invoked. l, therefore, allow this petition and appoint Mr. G.C. Gupta, Retired
Engineer-in-Chief, U.P.P.W.D., Mobile No. 9818108761, as the Sole arbitrator to adjudicate all the claims and counter-claims of the parties.
It shall be open to the respondent to raise its objections, if any, under
Section 16 of the Act before the Arbitral Tribunal. Considering the quantum of claims that the petitioner wishes to raise, the fees of the learned Arbitrator is fixed at Rs.40,000/- to be shared equally by the parties, apart from all other out of pocket expenses.
A copy of this order be communicated to the learned Arbitrator.
The petition staniJs disposed of. vtPtN sANGHl, J
OCTOBER 14, ?OLL
,BSR' ta
T a
14.10.2011
Despite pass-over, none appears for the respondents. No reply has been filed by the respondents. On the last date, Mr. Charan Singh, A.E,(Electrical) had appeared on behalf of the respondents and sought time to engage a counsel and file the reply. In view of the aforesaid position, I proceed to dispose of the petition, The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner entered into a contract with the respondent for supply, installation, testing & commissioning of distribution control panel and cables for single point
HT connection of 3.50 K.W. for NF on Ph-l and ll Azadpur on
06.11.2009. The agreement was preceded by a letter of Intent dated
L2.L0.2009'issued by the respondent in response to the petitioner's tender. The respondent accepted the petitioner's bid for the aforesaid work for a total amount of Rs.10,28,1981-. From the contract
2011:DHC:19387
\ tv document, which has been produced before the Court, it appears that the parties adopted the specifications of GPWD for the time being in force, which were agreed to form an integral part and sole repository of the terms & conditions of the contract. clause 25 0f the GPWD
General Terms & Conditions contains the arbitration agreement, which empowers the Chief Engineer to make the appointment of an Arbitrator in case disputes arise between the parties. According to the petitioner, disputes have arisen between the parties as the respondent has terminated the contract vide a letter dated 17 '12.2009 which, according to the petitioner, is illegal, The petitioner invoked the arbitration agreement vide a notice dated 16.03.2011. The said notice was addressed to the Chief Engineer Clo, Secretary, APMC. The petitioner stated in the said communication that since there is no post of Chief Engineer in APMC, the Secretary, APMC may suggest the names of the three retired Chief Engineers of CPWD for the petitioner's consent and appointment aS an Arbitrator by mutual consent.
According to the petitioner, the said notice was sent by Registered AD post. Despite the said notice, the Secretary of the APMC has failed to act in the matter. Consequently, this petition has beeh preferred.
From the aforesaid, prime facie, it appears that the parties entered into the aforesaid contract which contains the arbitration agreement in Clause 25 of the General Terms & Conditions of CPWD which have been adopted in the contract in question. lt also appears i, ''r
V that disputes have arisen between the parties in view of termination of the contract of the respondent on 17.12.2009. The disputes appear to be live. The respondent has not acted in terms of the notice dated
16.03.2011 whereby the arbitration agreement has been invoked. l, therefore, allow this petition and appoint Mr. G.C. Gupta, Retired
Engineer-in-Chief, U.P.P.W.D., Mobile No. 9818108761, as the Sole arbitrator to adjudicate all the claims and counter-claims of the parties.
It shall be open to the respondent to raise its objections, if any, under
Section 16 of the Act before the Arbitral Tribunal. Considering the quantum of claims that the petitioner wishes to raise, the fees of the learned Arbitrator is fixed at Rs.40,000/- to be shared equally by the parties, apart from all other out of pocket expenses.
A copy of this order be communicated to the learned Arbitrator.
The petition staniJs disposed of. vtPtN sANGHl, J
OCTOBER 14, ?OLL
,BSR' ta
T a
JUDGMENT