Delhi High Court
Gorkha Security Services vs School Of Planning & Architecture on 10 July, 2017
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 10.07.2017
+ ARB.P. 358/2017
GORKHA SECURITY SERVICES ..... Petitioner
versus
SCHOOL OF PLANNING & ARCHITECTURE ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath with Mr. Saurabh Kumar Tuteja and
Mr. Onkar Nath, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. R.K. Singh with Ms. Deepa Rai, Advocates.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
10.07.2017
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
IA No.6437/2017 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
ARB.P. 358/2017 & IA No.6438/2017 (on behalf of the petitioner
seeking directions to respondents to place on record the original
agreement)
1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 11(6) of the
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act') for appointment of an arbitrator.
2. The respondent awarded a contract to the petitioner for
providing security services in the premises of School of Planning &
Architecture at ITO, Vasant Kunj and Maharabagh Complex with
effect from 11.06.2011.
3. Disputes have arisen between the parties.
4. The petitioner has invoked arbitration clause contained in the
agreement.
5. The arbitration clause reads as under:-
"All disputes and claims shall be settled by arbitration,
in accordance with the provisions of the arbitration law
in force or any statutory requirements thereof and shall
be referred to the Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the
School. The Security Agency shall not be entitled to raise
any kind of objection whatsoever, in the event of the
School deciding to appoint any officer or employee of the
School as the Sole Arbitrator. The award given by the
Arbitrator shall be final and binding on both the parties
i.e. 'School' and the 'Contractor'.
6. Despite the petitioner having invoked arbitration by issuing
legal notice dated 17.10.2016. The Respondent School has not
appointed any arbitrator.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that, without
prejudice to the defence of the respondent, he has no objection to the
appointment of an independent Sole Arbitrator by this court to
adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
8. Accordingly, Mr. Justice Anil Dev Singh (retd.), Former Chief
Justice of Rajasthan, (Mobile No.9810060203) is appointed as the
Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. This is
subject to the Arbitrator making the necessary disclosure under
Section 12 of the Act not being ineligible under Section 12(5) of the
Act.
9. The Arbitral Tribunal shall examine the claims of the petitioner
and the counter claims, if any of the respondents.
10. The Arbitrator shall fix his fee in consultation with learned
counsel for the parties.
11. The parties are at liberty to approach the learned Arbitrator for
elucidating the necessary disclosures and for further proceedings.
12. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
13. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JULY 10, 2017/st
