Sanjay Tyagi v. Delhi Development Authority

1. This is a petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996[1], seeking reference of the disputes between the parties to arbitration.

2. The dispute arises in the context of an Agreement dated 25 November 2016 executed between the petitioner and the respondent. Clause 11 of the Agreement envisages resolution of disputes by arbitration and reads thus: “11.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION In case of any dispute arising between license i.e. DDA and the licensee in respect of the interpretation or performance of any terms & conditions of this agreement, the same shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the choice of Vice Chairman, DDA whose decision thereon shall be final and binding on both the parties. The licensee shall not object to the Vice Chairman, DDA’s action as sole arbitrator on the ground that he had dealt with the case or has at some stage expressed opinion in any mater connected herewith. “the 1996 Act”, hereinafter AN HARI SHANKAR 23:08 Signing Date:14.09.2024 23:09 No arbitration shall be allowed without depositing quarterly license fee.”

3. Though clause 11 contemplates arbitration by an arbitrator to be appointed by Vice Chairman of the respondent, that arrangement is not workable, in view of Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act read with the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Broadband Network Ltd v United Telecoms Ltd[2], Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v HSCC (India) Ltd[3] and Haryana Space Application Centre (HARSAC) v Pan India Consultants Pvt Ltd[4] amongst others.

4. Disputes having arisen between the parties, the petitioner addressed a notice to the respondent under Section 21 of the 1996 Act on 16 April 2024, seeking reference of the disputes to arbitration. The respondent did not reply. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court under Section 11(5) of the 1996 Act requesting the Court to appoint an arbitrator.

5. Ms. Rai, learned Counsel for the respondent has no objection to the Court appointing an arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes.

6. Accordingly, both sides submit that the disputes can be referred to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre[5].

7. Accordingly, this Court refers the disputes to the DIAC to appoint a suitable arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes between the

8. The arbitration shall take place under the aegis of the DIAC and shall abide by its rules and regulations.

9. The arbitrator shall be entitled to charge fees as per the schedule of fees maintained by the DIAC.

10. The learned arbitrator is also requested to file requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the 1996 Act within a week of entering on the reference.

11. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.