Full Text
FAO 84/2015
M/S R & T ENTERPRISES ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Moni Cinmoy, Mr. Arvind Kr. Pandey, Adv. and Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advs. .
Through: Mr. Sunil Goel, standing counsel,for North
DMC with Ms. Supreet Bimbra, Adv. > FAO 85/2015
M/S R & T ENTERPRISES ENGINEERS «fe CONTRACTORS
Appellant ' . Through: Mr. Moni Cinmoy, Mr. Arvind Kr.-Pandey, Adv. and Mr. Manoj Kumar,' Advs.
, Through: Mr. Sunil Goel, standing counsel for North
DMC with Ms. Supreet Bimbra, Adv.'
M/S R & T ENTERPRISES ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS ...... Appellant
Adv. and Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advs.
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPALCORPORATION ;....Respondent.
Through: Mr. Sunil Goel, standing counsel for North
DMC with Ms. Supreet.Bimbra, Adv.
, ' Adv. andMr. Manoj Kumar, Advs. ^
A:
2017:DHC:9103
Through; Mr. Sunil Goel, standing counsel for North
M/SR«&T ENTERPRISES ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS .....Appellant, Adv. and Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advs. -
Through: Mr.-Sunil Goel, standing counsel for North
Through: • Mr. Moni Cimnoy, Mr. Arvind Kr. Pandey, Adv. and Mr. Manoj Kumar,, Advs.
'
Through; Mr. Sunil Goel, standing counsel for North
M/S R «fe T ENTERPRISES ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS
Appellant Adv. and Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advs., \ '
Through: Mr. Sunil Goel, standing counsel for North
• ^
16.08.2017
ORDER
1. These cases are taken up today i.e 16.8.2017 as 14.8.2017 was declared as a holiday on account ofJanmashtami.
2. It is seen that all these appeals are against the common order of the court below dated 17,11.2014 by which the court below has set aside the Award, dated 2.5.2013 dealing with the 7 claims of the present appellant. The court below has held by the impugned order that the Arbitrator has committed an error in failing to decide the issue of limitation inasmuch as the court below has observed that the issue of limitation was left open to be decided by the Arbitrator in terms ofthe order dated 27.5.2008 passed by the Court under Section IT of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, and therefore, the Arbitrator was not justified in holding that he had not to decide the issue of limitation as regards the claims of interest and costs of,the present appellant/clainiant.
2. '. The court below has dealt with this aspect in para 9 of the I • ^, impugned order and it is seen that after the court below holds that the Award FAO 84/2015 & conn. Page 3 of[5] r is bad in not deciding the issue of limitation as contended on behalf of the respondent/North Delhi Municipal Corporation and accordingly it set aside the Award.-There is however no further reference or remand for deciding the issues of interest and costs in the fresh arbitration proceedings to be conducted. /.
3. Accordingly, it is agreed and these appeals are disposed of allowing the respondent to now appoint the Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clausewithin a periodof six weeks from today and the ^bitrator now to be appointed will decide the claims of the present appellant with respect to interest and costs and the defences thereto of the respondent including the defence of the claims of interest and costs being barred by limitation., '4. - Since the impugned Award was passed by the Arbitrator at the state of final arguments, the new Arbitrator now to be appointed will also decide the issues from the stage of final arguments in the arbitration proceedings and on the basis of the existing record in the arbitration proceedings.. -
5. Arbitral record available in this Court be given to the counsel ^ FAO 84/2015 & conn. Page 4 of[5] for the respondent and the counsel for the respondent will give the arbitral record to the appropriate authority or to the new Arbitrator who will be appointed.
6. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order. Parties are left to bear their own costs.