Delhi High Court
B.S. Sangwan vs Union Of India on 2 June, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Order delivered on: 2nd June, 2016
+ O.M.P. (T) No.43/2015
B.S. SANGWAN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.S.W. Haider, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Jagjit Singh, Adv. with Mr.Preet
Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner in the above said matter has filed the petition
under Section 14 & 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
(hereinafter referred to as the "Act") seeking termination of the
mandate of the existing Arbitrators and appointment of an independent
Arbitrator in their place.
2. Brief facts as per the petition are that the work pertaining to
complete track renewal of 13.14 kms on 90R/90Lbs. Rail laid on CST-
9/ST sleepers with 52 Kg., 72UTS (SH) rails on PSC/ST/CST-9 sleepers
to required density with deep screening from Km. 0.00 to 13.14 on
PHR-LNK section under PWI/NRO was awarded to the petitioner vide
Agreement No.272-W/FZR-II dated 25th September, 2001 for
Rs.50,04,511/- and the stipulated date of completion of work was 6
months from the date of issuance of acceptance letter on 13th August,
2001 i.e., the work awarded was to expire on 12th February, 2002. The
respondent despite successful completion of the contractual work in
the month of March, 2005, did not release the final bill, which ought to
have been paid within a period of three months from the date of
completion as per the terms governing the contract. Consequently, the
petitioner vide his letter dated 17th January, 2007 invoked the
arbitration clause as contained under clause 64 of the General
Conditions of the Contract as applicable to the parties hereto, calling
upon the respondent to constitute the Arbitral Tribunal for adjudication
of the claims of the petitioner.
3. The petition filed by the petitioner seeking appointment of the
Arbitrator was disposed of by order dated 25th January, 2008. On 25th
November, 2008, the respondent finally constituted the panel of three
Arbitrators, namely, Mr.Vinay Singh, CE/Const/NC, Kashmere Gate,
Northern Railway, Delhi as Co-Arbitrator, Mr.R.K. Manocha,
F&CAO/RCF, Rae Bareli Project, Kishan Ganj, Delhi as the other Co-
arbitrator and Mr.V.K. Madhukar, Chief Engineer, Rail Coach Factory,
Rae Bareli Project, Kishan Ganj, Delhi as the Presiding Arbitrator for
adjudication of the disputes between the parties. The petitioner filed
his claim petition on 19th January, 2009. Since nothing moved in the
case, the petitioner having no option left wrote a letter dated 15th
February, 2011 to the Arbitrators requesting to conclude the
arbitration proceedings in the absence of any reply from the
Department despite expiry of two years. Consequent thereto, the co-
Arbitrators on 9th November, 2011 held a meeting and then a decision
was taken by them to again send a copy of the statement of claim filed
by the petitioner to the concerned Division of the department for their
reply. The concerned Division of the respondent department in the
month of December, 2011 filed their reply to the claim petition as well
as their counter-claim. However, despite filing of the reply by the
Department, the arbitration proceedings never got started or
conducted, despite expiry of such long period of time. Hence, the
present petition has been filed by the petitioner.
4. Notice of this petition was issued to the petitioner. However, no
reply has been filed by the respondent despite several opportunities
granted to it in this regard. The Arbitral Tribunal was constituted by
order dated 25th January, 2008. There is hardly any progress in the
matter, except the claims were filed and reply thereto. Eight years
have already been expired. Section 14 of the Act provides for the
Arbitral Tribunal for his failure on the basis of which mandate stands
terminated. In this case, it appears to the Court that there is undue
delay in publication of Award. The Court, under such situation, has
power to terminate the mandate. The present case is a fit case where
the arbitration proceedings are liable to be terminated.
5. Under these circumstances, the prayer made in the petition for
substituting and appointing an independent and neutral person as
Arbitrator is allowed. The mandate of the earlier Arbitral Tribunal is
terminated. Accordingly, Justice Mool Chand Garg (retired Judge of
Madhya Pradesh High Court), C-113, East of Kailash, Ground Floor,
Near Iskon Temple, New Delhi. (Mobile No.9899337979) is appointed
as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties as
mentioned in the present petition. The parties are also allowed
to file their respective claims and counter-claims before the
Arbitrator.
6. The Arbitrator shall ensure the compliance of the provisions of
Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 before
commencing the arbitration. The fees of the learned Arbitrator shall be
in terms of the schedule of the amended Act. The parties to appear
before the Arbitrator on 29th July, 2016 at 4:30 pm for directions.
7. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
8. Copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the
parties and a copy thereof be delivered to the learned Arbitrator
forthwith.
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
JUNE 02, 2016
