Paramjeet Singh Narula vs Delhi Development Authority
2009 Latest Caselaw 3826 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                             Date of Reserve: September 10, 2009
                                             Date of Order: September 17, 2009

+Arb. P. 316/2008
%                                                                  17.09.2009
     Paramjeet Singh Narula                                        ...Petitioner
     Through: Mr. Renuka Arora, Advocate

        Versus

        Delhi Development Authority                              ...Respondent
        Through: Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Advocate


        JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.      Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.      Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


        JUDGMENT

1. By this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,

1996 ("the Act", for short) the petitioner has prayed for appointment of an

independent arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes raised by the petitioner. The

petitioner has filed an affidavit along with this petition stating therein that the

petitioner completed the work to the entire satisfaction of respondent but the

final bill was not paid to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted that vide his

letter/notice dated 13th April 2005, he requested respondent to prepare the

final bill and release the security deposit. However, despite this notice the bill

was not prepared and on his personal visits it was informed by Executive

Engineer that certain CTE, CVC enquiry was there for which the bill was not

being finalized. He also handed over a copy of letter dated 14 th July 2005 to

the petitioner. This letter was addressed to the Chief Technical Examiner CVC.

The respondent vide letter dated 21st January 2008 also directed Manager

Arb.P 316 of 2008 Paramjeet Singh Narula v DDA Page 1 Of 3 Punjab & Sind Bank to renew FDR of the petitioner deposited by him towards

security deposit. It is stated that the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause

vide letter dated 31st May, 2008 and requested the Engineer Member DDA to

appoint an arbitrator. The petitioner received a letter from respondent that

case of the petitioner was being processed and petitioner shall be intimated

with respect to the same, however, no action was taken.

2. During arguments, counsel for respondent pleaded that the petition

was barred by limitation since admittedly the disputes had arisen prior to 13th

April 2005. The petitioner had served a notice dated 13 th April 2005 and filed

this petition in August, 2008 i.e. more than three years after the service of

notice and thus the petition was barred by limitation.

3. If the contract between the parties had come to an end and a final bill

had been prepared, the contention raised by the respondent would have been

justified. However, in this case after completion of work, final bill of the

petitioner was not prepared as for certain reasons, the matter went to CTE,

CVC. The respondent had been telling CTE, CVC that it should finalize the

matter soon so that respondent can make payment of security deposit to the

petitioner and had not to incur interest on overdue payment as claimed by

petitioner. Subsequent to that the respondent wrote letter to the banker of

the petitioner asking the bank to renew the FDR. It is clear from these letters

that due to pendency of matter before CTE, CVC, respondent had not closed

the contract nor refunded the security amount nor settled the final bill of the

petitioner. Merely because the petitioner served a notice to respondent for

clearing its dues would not change the situation regarding respondent's stand

and the factual situation that the contract was kept alive by respondent.

Arb.P 316 of 2008 Paramjeet Singh Narula v DDA Page 2 Of 3 Since the contract was being kept alive by respondent and respondent had

not finalized the bill, I consider that the present petition made by petitioner

for appointment of an arbitrator for settlement of its disputes is maintainable

and it cannot be said that it was barred by limitation. Even otherwise, the

arbitration clause signed between the parties provides that demand for

arbitration can be made in writing within 90 days of receipt of intimation from

Engineer Incharge that the bill was made for payment. It is not the case of

respondent that the respondent had informed the petitioner at any point of

time that its final bill was ready for payment.

4. I, therefore, consider that this petition made by petitioner needs to be

allowed. The petition is hereby allowed and I hereby appoint Ms. Mamta

Sehgal, District & Sessions Judge (retired), as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate

the disputes between the parties in this case. Both parties shall appear before

the Arbitrator within 30 days.

5. The petition stands disposed of.

September 17, 2009                                 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




Arb.P 316 of 2008   Paramjeet Singh Narula v DDA                  Page 3 Of 3