Delhi High Court
Vin Softtech Pvt. Ltd vs Sarcon Projects Pvt Ltd on 17 September, 2020
$~1(original side)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on 17th September, 2020
+ ARB.P. 384/2020 & IA. 8195/2020
VIN SOFTTECH PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Praveen Chauhan, Adv.
versus
SARCON PROJECTS PVT. LTD. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Preet Pal Singh, Ms. Richa
Sandilya and Mr. Kunal
Tandon, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C .HARI SHANKAR
O R D E R (ORAL)
% 17.09.2020
(Video-Conferencing)
C .HARI SHANKAR, J.
IA. 8195/2020
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
ARB.P. 384/2020
1. Issue notice to the respondent. Notice is accepted by Mr. Preet
Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:19.09.2020
21:12:59
2. With the consent of the parties, this petition is taken up for final
disposal.
3. This petition, under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "1996 Act"), seeks
appointment of a presiding arbitrator, as the arbitrators, appointed by
the parties, have been unable to arrive at a consensus in that regard.
4. The dispute emanates from a construction agreement, dated 6 th
June, 2019, whereby the respondent was contracted to construct on the
plot of the petitioner at C-20/1A/2, Sector 62, Noida, Uttar Pradesh.
According to the petition, the petitioner alleges that there was delay in
the progress of work on the part of the respondent, and that a Show
Cause Notice was issued to the respondent, on 21st January, 2020, by
the petitioner, whereafter the time for the completion of the project
was extended, vide an amendment to the original agreement, dated 6th
March, 2020.
5. It is asserted in the petition that the agreement between the
parties was terminated, vide termination notice, dated 3rd July, 2020.
6. Needless to say, there are allegations and counter allegations
between the parties, and this Court, in these proceedings, is not
required to enter into the merits thereof. Suffice it to state that the
petitioner claims, from the respondent, ₹ 1,14,38,016/-, whereas the
respondent claims approximately ₹ 2.32 crores.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:19.09.2020
21:12:59
7. Clause 25 of the Construction Agreement, dated 6 th June, 2019,
provides for arbitration, as the mode for resolution of disputes
between the parties, and reads thus:
"25. Any dispute or difference relating to the specifications,
designs, drawings, quality of workmanship or material used
in the work, relating to carrying out the works, whether
during the progress of the work or after completion of work
or on any other matter whatsoever relating to the contract,
unless resolved amicably within 30 days of raising such
dispute in writing, shall be referred to a panel of three
arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party and the third to
be decided jointly by the other two. In an event of non-
agreement on the third arbitrators and if any party does not
cooperate or remains absent at the reference, the arbitrators,
the same shall be appointed under the provisions of Indian
Arbitration Act."
8. Acting on the basis of the afore-extracted Clause of the
Construction Agreement, the petitioner appointed Mr. R.D. Mirza, a
retired Civil Engineer; whereas the respondent appointed Mr. Anil
Sharma, Advocate, as their respective arbitrators.
9. The arbitrators have been unable to arrive at a consensus
regarding the presiding arbitrator, as a result of which this petition has
come to be filed.
10. Mr. Preet Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, agrees
that, in the circumstances, the presiding arbitrator would have to be
appointed by this Court, and submits that, in fact, a similar petition has
also been filed by him, which is likely to be listed shortly.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:19.09.2020
21:12:59
11. Be that as it may, in view of the impasse that has ensued, as a
result of the inability of the learned arbitrators appointed by the parties
to arrive at a consensus regarding the presiding arbitrator, this Court is
required to take a decision in that regard, in view of Section 11(4) of
the 1996 Act, read with Clause 25 of the Construction Agreement.
12. Given the nature of the disputes, this Court appoints Mr. Brij
Bhushan Gupta, learned Senior Advocate of this Court, (Mobile No. -
9811348989, Office Address - 380, Lawyer's Chamber, Block-II, The
High Court of Delhi), as the presiding arbitrator. Learned counsel for
the parties are directed to contact the presiding arbitrator, at the
aforesaid particulars within forty-eight hours.
13. The presiding arbitrator would furnish the requisite disclosure,
in accordance with Section 12 of the 1996 Act, within a week of
entering on reference.
14. Fees of the learned presiding arbitrator would be fixed in
accordance with the provisions of the 1996 Act read with the Fourth
Schedule thereof.
15. Needless to say, the factual recital, hereinabove, regarding the
disputes between the parties, is merely to delineate the scope of the
disputes and would not influence the learned arbitrator, in arbitrating
on the disputes between the parties.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:19.09.2020
21:12:59
16. With the aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
SEPTEMBER 17, 2020/r.bararia
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:19.09.2020
21:12:59
