Tuesday, 28, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Goel Construction Co. vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
2021 Latest Caselaw 3447 Del

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3447 Del
Judgement Date : 14 December, 2021

Delhi High Court
Goel Construction Co. vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. on 14 December, 2021
$~5
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                            Date of decision: 14.12.2021
+     ARB.P. 1167/2021
      GOEL CONSTRUCTION CO.                              ..... Petitioner
                          Through      Mr. Ankur Gosain, Adv.

                          versus

      DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. ..... Respondent
                   Through Mr. Ankur Chibber, Adv.


      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 Sole

Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes with respondent.

2. Petitioner- company claims to be engaged in the business of execution

of civil works. Respondent is a company registered under Companies Act,

1956 and is engaged in the business of Mass Rapid Transport System.

3. According to petitioner, respondent floated a Tender bearing No.

CCM-18/2015: construction of blowdown plant and shifting of Platform at

Sarita Vihar Train Depot and the said work was awarded vide Letter of

Award ("LoA" in short) dated 12.01.2016 for total value of

Rs.46,71,462.87/- inclusive of all taxes, duties & levies. The subject work

was stipulated to be completed within 180 days, commencing from 7 days

after issuance of the LoA, i.e. on/before 18.07.2016. The stipulated date for

commencement of work was 18.01.2016 on which, the respondent was to

provide hindrance free site, plan and data of the blowdown plant. However,

according to petitioner, respondent failed to do so though petitioner's

company had mobilized its workforce and equipment for timely completion

of the works awarded immediately after the issuance of the LOA. After

repeated requests, respondent partly provided site to the petitioner's

company in the month of February, 2016 for execution of only 13 units out

of 23 units of the quantity given in BOQ as NDSR item number 04 of the

LOA, i.e. dismantling of an existing platform, transportation and erection of

the same platform at new location, including minor repair (welding and

cutting, etc.) as per requirement and complete as per the direction of the

Engineer-in-Charge and other relating items to that NDSR.

4. At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the

stipulated date for completion of above mentioned work was 18.07.2016,

which expired due to the non-performance of the obligations on the part of

respondent. The actual date of commencement was 26.12.2016 which is

approximately 6 months after the expiration of stipulated date of completion.

Furthermore, petitioner requested the respondent vide its letters dated

17.05.2017 and 03.06.2017 to increase petitioner's contract price @ 20%

due to the increase in the price of material and labour and GST, which is

applicable @ 18% instead of [email protected] 4%, which would result in direct loss

of 18% to petitioner or they could opt to settle petitioner's final claims,

refund performance guarantee and security deposit, owing to the non-

performance of contract on part of the respondent. On 20.07.2017,

respondent terminated the work awarded to petitioner- company. Thereafter,

disputes arose between the parties.

5. It is further submitted that a legal notice dated 24.11.2020 was served

upon respondent to invoke arbitration in terms of Clause 17 of General

Conditions of Contract. However, respondent failed to forward suggestion

of names of Arbitrators. Hence, the present petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for respondent has appeared and submitted that

though the averments made in the present petition are disputed, however,

there is no objection if the present petition is allowed and sole Arbitrator is

appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

7. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly,

Mr. R.S.Rathi, Advocate (Mobile: 9810868733) is appointed sole

Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

8. The fee of the learned Arbitrator shall be governed by the Fourth

Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

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

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.

10. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

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

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE DECEMBER 14, 2021 rk

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter