A.R. Builders v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

1. Heard.

ORDER 2L.O[1],2011

2. The petitioner seeks transfer of objections filed by the Municipal corporation of Delhi to the Award dated 5th February,20ro passed by Shri R.K. Jain, retired Chief Engineer of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (McD), which are pending in the court of shri sanjeev Kumar, ADJ before the Rohini District Courts which have been registered as Arbitration No.55/2010. This court is informed that the matter before Shri Sanjeev Kumar, ADJ, Rohini District Court in arbitration No.5512OIO is listed on 9th March, 20LL.

2. The prayer of the petitioner is premised on the sole plea that the contract which was the subject matter of arbitration, was executed on - 2011:DHC:18449 -/ ) -2behalf of the MCD by its Commissioner who is located at Chandni Chowk which is within the jurisdiction of the district courts at Tis Hazari. lt is also submitted that payments have to be disbursed from Chandni Chowk itself.

3. The further submission is that after the making of the award, the petitioner had filed objections to the award which have been registered as cs No.75l2010 entitled A.R. Builders partnership Firm Vs. The Commissioner, MCD, Chandni Chowk, Delhi before the District Court at Tis Hazari, seeking summoning of the record of the arbitrator. lt is contended that pursuant to the orders passed in these proceedings, the record of the arbitrator is also in the District Courts at Tis Hazari, Delhi.

4. ln this background, it is urged that the objections which have been filed by the MCD and are pending at district courts at Rohini deserve to be transferred and consolidated with CS No.75 I2OIO at the District Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi.

5. This petition is opposed on behalf of the MCD. lt is pointed out that having regard to the delegation of authority, all such contracts above a particular value would be executed by the Commissioner of the MCD irrespective of the location of the work. lt is contended that the working of the contract, however, is monitored by the zone of the MCD where the work is undertaken. lt is also submitted that all -3records relating to the execution of the contract would be available in the zone where the work has been undertaken

6. Learned counsel for the respondent further points out that in the instant case, apart from the work which is the subject matter of arbitration award dated 5th February, 2010, the petitioner was awarded the work for construction of the MCD Primary school, pocket-B, phase l, Metro Vihar, Holambi Kalan, Narela zone, New Delhi. A dispute in respect of this contract has also arisen which is pending consideration before the Rohini District Courts.

7. The above narration would show that so far as the records of the instant case with the MCD are concerned, they would be available in the zone where the work was undertaken. The award dated 5th February, 2OIO resulted in arbitration proceedings with regard to the agreement No,5 dated 8th April, 2004.whereby the petitioner was awarded the work of construction of L[3] class rooms in MCD primary school, Metro Vihar, Holambi Kalan, Narela. Merely because the seat of the commissioner is located in chandni chowk and payments may be required to be effected from the main office of the MCD, would be no ground for transferring all matters relating to all contracts with the MCD to the jurisdiction of the district courts at Tis Hazari within whose jurisdiction the Chandni Chowk area would fall.

8. Apart from reasons of expediency and burdening of the district -4- 7 courts, the aspect of the convenience to the respondent who would be maintaining the records in the respective zone where the contracts are to be executed, would also require to be considered.

9. ln view of the above, I am not inclined to grant the prayer made by the petitioner for transfer of the pending objections of the MCD in district court at Rohini to District Courts at Tis Hazari. However, interest of justice and expediency merit that objections filed by both parties be heard by the same court in orderto avoid wastage of judicial time and conflict in adjudication.

10. In view of the above, it is directed as follows:-

(i) The complete record of CS No.7512010 entitled A.R. Buildings

Partnership Firm Vs. The Commissioner, MCD which is presently pending in the court of Shri V.K. Yadav, ADJ along with the entire record of the arbitration proceedings including the award dated 5th February, 2010 made by Shri R.K. Jain, Sole Arbitrator, shall stand.transferred to the court of Shri Sanjeev Kumar, ADJ Rohini District Court and consolidated with Arbitration Case No.55/2010 filed by the MCD.

(ii) The parties shall appear before the court of Shri Sanjeev Kumar,