Delhi High Court
Nisha Rani Aggarwal vs Delhi Development Authority And ... on 11 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002 IIAD Delhi 858, 2002 (2) ARBLR 471 Delhi, 96 (2002) DLT 557, 2002 (62) DRJ 147
Author: J Kapoor
Bench: J Kapoor
JUDGMENT
J.D. Kapoor, J.
1. This is an application under Section 11 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment
of an Arbitrator.
2. The petitioner is the widow of late Sh. Satish
Kumar Aggarwal. Late Sh. Satish Kumar Aggarwal had entered
into the contract for the work "C/o 72 nos.Cat.III DUS. 48
Nos.Cat.II DUS and 72 Nos. S/g bldg.work/i/x/int.W/S&S/I
etc. complete" with respondent No. 1. Certain disputes
arose out of the said contract which were to be settled in
accordance with Clause 25 of the agreement i.e.
Arbitration clause. On the letter of the petitioner, One
Sh.S.C. Kaushal was appointed as Arbitrator.
3. Notice was sent to the applicant at the old
address where she had been residing when her husband was
alive but could not be served as she temporarily shifted
to Chandigarh after the death of her husband. When she
approached the Arbitrator for being made legal heir of her
deceased husband, the Arbitrator informed her that he had
already returned the file to the DDA. On this, the
applicant moved DDA with a request that a new Arbitrator
be appointed but her request was declined vide letter
dated 15.2.1996. Feeling aggrieved, she moved the instant
application.
4. It appears that the applicant did not inform the
Arbitrator about her change of address and the Arbitrator
sent notice at the old address. Being a household lady,
she may not be aware of the legal obligation that it is
the duty of the party to inform the court or the
Arbitrator about his/her change of address so that
communication is received by the party concerned. But
such inaction on the part of the petitioner/applicant
cannot operate adversely against her or to her detriment.
5. Merely because a party much less a housewife
sends a notices does not mean that he or she is expected to
know the legal provision or requirement that he or she has
to inform the court or the Arbitrator about her change of
address. Non-compliance of such a formality cannot or
ought not be allowed to forfeit the right of the party to
be heard before any adverse order or action is taken. One
cannot be oblivious of the fact that the applicant being
household lady was under bereavement because of untimely
death of her husband. Provisions of Limitation Act are
not strictly applicable to arbitration proceedings and for
that purpose for invocation of arbitration clause unless
specific period is stipulated in the agreement. Even in
that case, there is no rule of thumb. Every case has to
be adjudged in the face of its facts. Facts of the case
are guiding factors.
6. It is not a case where the applicant has not
invoked Clause 25 of the agreement for six/seven years.
Arbitrator was appointed on her request in 1991. The
Arbitrator declined to entertain her request for being
made L.R. of the deceased contractor on the plea that he
has already returned the file to the DDA for want of
service of notice. It is not again a case where she
remained inactive and did not take any action. She again
approached the DDA for appointment of Arbitrator but the
respondent-DDA declined her request vide letter dated
15.2.1996.
7. Taking overall view of the facts and keeping in
view the interests of justice, there is no perceptible
ground to decline the application. The application is
allowed. Respondent No. 1-DDA is directed to appoint an
Arbitrator within six weeks.
8. However, the objection of the respondent-DDA
that applicant shall not be entitled for interest during
the period when she did not inform the Arbitrator about
her changed address, shall be decided by the Arbitrator
while making the award.
9. Petitioner is disposed of accordingly. Copy of
this order be sent to the respondent-DDA forthwith.
