Delhi High Court
Rbcl Projects Private Limited vs Bptp Limited on 11 August, 2021
$~11 to 13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 11.08.2021
(i) + ARB.P. 707/2021
(ii) + ARB.P. 708/2021
(iii) + ARB.P. 711/2021
RBCL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Mr.Soayib
Qureshi & Mr.Ajay Sharma,
Advocates
Versus
BPTP LIMITED ......Respondent
Through: Mr. Nitish K. Sharma, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (oral)
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
1. The above captioned petitions have been filed under the provisions of
Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. Pertinently, the dispute inter se parties pertains to different work
orders issued by the respondent to petitioner with regard to different
projects.
3. The above captioned first petition [ARB.P. 707/2021] pertains to
work order dated 13.12.2016 and 19.01.2017. The second captioned petition
[ARB.P. 708/2021] pertains to work order dated 06.04.2015 and the third
captioned petition [ARB.P. 711/2021], pertains to work order dated
13.09.2016. According to petitioner, these work orders contain an arbitration
clause in the event of dispute between the parties.
4. According to petitioner, after a dispute arose between the parties, ,
vide notice dated 09.02.2021, petitioner invoked the arbitration clause and
proposed the name of an Arbitrator, however, respondent went ahead and
unilaterally appointed sole Arbitrator, which is bad in law. Hence,
petitioners have approached this Court seeking appointment of an Arbitrator.
5. Pertinently, existence of work orders and arbitration clause; dispute
between the parties and invocation of arbitration by the petitioner vide
notice dated 09.02.2021, is not disputed by learned counsel for the
respondent.
6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the
petition and material placed on record, this Court finds that no party can be
permitted to unilaterally appoint an Arbitrator, as the same would defeat the
purpose of unbiased adjudication of dispute between the parties. It has so
been said in view of pertinent observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. vs. HSCC (India) Ltd. 2019 SCC
Online SC 1517 wherein it has been categorically stated that "in cases
where one party has a right to appoint a sole arbitrator, its choice will
always have an element of exclusivity in determining or charting the course
for dispute resolution. Naturally, the person who has an interest in the
outcome or decision of the dispute must not have the power to appoint a sole
arbitrator."
7. The afore-noted dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Perkins
Eastman (Supra), has been followed by Coordinate Benches of this Court in
Proddatur Cable Tv Digi Services Vs. Siti Cable Network Limited 2020
SCC OnLine Del 350 and VSK Technologies Private Limited and Others
Vs. Delhi Jal Board 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3525 in unequivocal terms.
8. In view of the above, these petitions are allowed. Accordingly,
Justice Pratibha Rani (Retd) (Mobile: 9910384626) is appointed the sole
Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The arbitration shall
be conducted under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The
fee of the Arbitrator shall be in accordance with the schedule of fees
prescribed under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) (Internal
Management) Rules and Delhi International Arbitration Centre
(Administrative Cost and Arbitrators' Fees) Rules, 2018.
9. The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.
10. Needless to say, all issues are left open for agitation by the parties and
consideration by the learned Arbitrator.
11. With aforesaid directions, the above captioned three petitions are
accordingly disposed of.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
AUGUST 11, 2021
r
