Delhi High Court
M/S Usha Craft vs M/S A.B. Hotels Ltd. on 24 May, 2013
Author: Manmohan Singh
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Order delivered on: May 24, 2013
+ ARB.P. 78/2013
M/S USHA CRAFT ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Subhasish Mohanty, Adv.
versus
M/S A.B HOTELS LTD ..... Respondent
Through Ms.Surekha Raman, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole
independent Arbitrator.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has completed
the works pertaining to the supply of furniture for Renovation of 77
Guest Rooms in Radisson Hotel to the satisfaction of the respondent.
The petitioner informed that defect liability period of six months has
expired on 6 th October, 2012 and requested to the respondent to
release its retention money of `4,12,285/- for the furniture supplied to
the respondent. The respondent was asked to pay the said amount
along with interest @18% per annum from 6th October, 2012. The
notice of invocation of arbitration was issued by the petitioner on 7 th
December, 2012. Since no reply to the said notice was given, the
petitioner filed the present petition against the respondent.
3. Reply has been filed by the respondent. In the reply, it is stated
that the petition is not maintainable as the position with regard to
appropriation of retention money against the amount payable in terms
of the agreement had been clarified to the petitioner. It is also stated
that there was considerable delay in performance of the petitioner who
has also failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the agreement
and committed breach thereof, therefore, the respondent was justified
for appropriation of the retention money against the amount payable
in terms of the agreement. The petitioner disputes the plea of the
respondent. It is evident from the pleadings that the disputes exist
between the parties as both parties have their own versions. It is not
in dispute that there is an agreement between the parties which
contains the arbitration clause.
4. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the prayer of
the present petition is liable to be allowed.
5. Accordingly, with the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties, the disputes are referred to the arbitration, to be conducted
under the aegis of Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre and its rules
and the fee shall also be paid to the sole arbitrator as per rules thereof.
The Arbitrator appointed by the Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre
shall give prior notice before commencing the proceedings. The
petition stands disposed of.
6. A copy of this order be communicated to the Secretary to the
Arbitration Centre forthwith. Copies of the same be also given dasti
to the learned counsel for the parties.
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
MAY 24, 2013
