Delhi High Court
Connect Architectural Products ... vs Era Infra Engineering Ltd And Anr on 13 September, 2018
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ARB.P. 251/2018
Date of Decision: 13.09.2018
CONNECT ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.
..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, Adv.
versus
ERA INFRA ENGINEERING LTD AND ANR
..... Respondent
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
1 Notice in this petition was issued on 09.04.2018, which was
made returnable on 17.07.2018. Since, there was no appearance on
behalf of the respondents, adverse orders were deferred. In the order
dated 17.07.2018, it was noticed that respondent No. 1 & 2 are the
same entity and that in the memo of parties, they were shown
separately only for the reason that the different addresses were given
for effecting service on the entity going by the name Era Infra
Engineering Ltd. Therefore, hereafter the said entity would be
referred to as the respondent. Despite deferring adverse orders in the
matter, even today there is no representation on behalf of the
respondent.
Arb. P. 251/2018 Page 1
2 The petitioner seeks appointment of an Arbitrator in the matter
in view of disputes having arisen in respect of Work Order No: EPC-
Infra -1/HO/W0/10-11/0002/1183/00063.
3 The value of this work order, according to the petitioner, was a
sum of Rs.5,79,923/-. The petitioner, upon disputes having arisen,
issued a legal notice dated 10.11.2017. Via the said legal notice, the
petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.12,69,044/- along with costs.
3.1 The reason that a demand in the sum of Rs.12,69,044/-
(Rs.5,79,923/-+ Rs. 5,37,581/-+ Rs. 1,51,540/-) was made as the
petitioner had entered in two other work orders qua which separate
arbitration petitions have been filed. These arbitration petitions are
numbered as: Arb. P. No.275/2018 & Arb. P. No.276/2018. These
arbitration petitions are also on my board today and are listed as items
No. 3 & 4.
4 It appears that the petitioner had, in fact, filed a civil suit for
recovery of the said sum of Rs.12,69,044/-. The said civil suit,
apparently, was disposed of in view of the permission sought by the
petitioner to withdraw the suit. This aspect of the matter is recorded in
the order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge,
Central (Pilot Court).
5 The arbitration agreement obtaining between the parties which,
is reflected in Clause 2.6, Annexure 1 of the work order, reads as
follows:
"2.6 Arbitration
a) Any disputes arising out of this Contract shall be referred
to the sole arbitrator i.e. Managing Director of Era Infra
Engineering Ltd. who may further appoint any person not
Arb. P. 251/2018 Page 2
below the rank of General Manager and there shall be no
objection if arbitrator so appointed is an employee of Era
Infra Engineering Ltd.
In Case the Arbitrator to whom the matter Is originally
referred get transferred or vacates his office or unable to act
for any reason as aforesaid at the time of -such transfer,
vacation of office or inability to act, Managing Director,
EIEL shall appoint another person to act as Sole Arbitrator
in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration &
Conciliation Act 1996."
6 A perusal of the arbitration clause would show that the disputes
between the parties had to be referred to the sole Arbitrator i.e. the
Managing Director of the respondent. The clause further provides
that the Managing Director of the respondent has the power to appoint
any other person as the Arbitrator, who is not below the rank of a
General Manager.
7 Given the provisions of Section 12 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short '1996 Act') read with Schedule VII,
the Managing Director of the respondent would be ineligible to act as
a sole Arbitrator in the matter. Since, the Managing Director is
ineligible to act as a sole Arbitrator, he cannot have the power to
appoint another person to act as the Arbitrator.
8 In any case, the respondent has not entered appearance in the
Court despite notice.
9 In these circumstances, the prayer made in the petition is
allowed.
10 Accordingly, Mr. Arun Kumar Arya, Former Principal Judge,
Family Court, Delhi (M: 9910384687) is appointed as the sole
Arbitrator. Learned Arbitrator will adjudicate upon the disputes, vis-
Arb. P. 251/2018 Page 3
a-vis all three work orders i.e. Work Order No: EPC-Infra-
1/HO/W0/10-11/0002/1183/00063, Work Order No:
EIEL/HO/W0/09-10/0002/1139/00019/216/656 and Work Orders
No.EIELIHO/W0/09-10/0002/1131/00031/1/598.
11 The learned Arbitrator will be paid fee as per the provisions of
the Schedule V of the 1996 Act.
12 Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
SEPTEMBER 13, 2018
A
Arb. P. 251/2018 Page 4
