Rajendra Mittal Construction Co ... vs Ncml Batala Pvt Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 3390 Del

$~4
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                            Date of decision: 09.12.2021
+     ARB.P. 1092/2021
      RAJENDRA MITTAL CONSTRUCTION CO
      PVT LTD                                             ..... Petitioner
                         Through      Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Ms. Aakanksha
                                      Nehra and Mr. Siddhartha Shukla,
                                      Advocates
                         versus

      NCML BATALA PVT LTD                               ..... Respondent
                   Through            Mr. Vishal Bhatnagar, Ms. Lata and
                                      Mr. Ishu Manaksiya, Advs.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                         J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11 (6) of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of Arbitrator on

behalf of respondent to adjudicate the disputes with respondent.

2. Petitioner was awarded construction of civil and associated works for

proposed Silos Complex at Batala by respondent vide Tender document

bearing No.NCML/BATALA/CIVIL/2017-18/04 dated 28.02.2018 and

subsequently through a Contract Agreement dated 14.05.2018, 30.08.2019

and 08.09.2020 to be completed in a time frame of 8 months. Respondent

failed to provide land and other miscellaneous support, due to which the

petitioner was unable to execute the work, therefore, the project is running

onto its 40th Month.

3. According to petitioner, due to failure of the obligations of

respondent, petitioner issued the Termination Notice cum Notice invoking

Arbitration dated 30.09.2021 whereby the petitioner terminated the Contract

and nominated its Arbitrator, namely,. Justice S.P. Garg, (Retd.) and upon

receipt of the said notice, respondent replied vide its reply dated 28.10.2021

refuting the contentions of the petitioner, however, in its reply neither

respondent denied the existence of the Arbitration Agreement nor nominated

its Arbitrator. Therefore, the present petition has been filed by petitioner to

nominate Arbitrator on part of respondent in terms of Clause 62

("Arbitration Clause") forming a part of the Contract dated 14.05.2018 as

executed between the parties.

4. During hearing, learned counsel for petitioner prays that sole

Arbitrator may be appointed through DIAC to adjudicate the dispute

between the parties.

5. Learned counsel for respondent has not objected to the appointment of

sole Arbitrator for adjudication of dispute between the parties.

6. In view of the above and with the consent of parties, the present

petition is allowed. Accordingly, Mr. Justice (Retd.) J.R. Midha (Mobile:

9717495003) is appointed sole Arbitrator in this petition to adjudicate the

dispute between the parties.

7. 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 (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators' Fees) Rules, 2018.

8. The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.

9. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

10. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Arbitrator for information.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE DECEMBER 09, 2021 rk