Delhi High Court
M/S Kgl Infrastructures vs Union Of India on 21 December, 2021
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 21.12.2021
+ ARB.P. 982/2021
M/S KGL INFRASTRUCTURES ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. S.W. Haider, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Jagjit Sing, Sr. St. Counsel with
Mr. Preet Singh and Mr. Vipin
Chaudhary, 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 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of Arbitrator on behalf of
respondent to adjudicate the disputes with respondent. Pertinently, petitioner
is a partnership firm and is engaged in the business of construction and
undertakes railway contracts.
2. According to petitioner, it was awarded work for providing of limited
height sub way in place of U/M L-xing no.35 at km. 38/4-4, 37 at km.40/4-5
and 39 at km. 41/5-6 under railway track between KEX-BTU section on
DSA-SMQL section under ADEN/SMQL vide acceptance letter dated
30.05.2017 for Rs.4,73,51,203/- and stipulated date of completion of work
was 6 months i.e. 30.11.2017. All arrangements were made for execution of
work but due to late sanctioning of block for placing of pre casted RCC
boxes, substantial increase in the scope of work, late decisions, increase in
cost, non-availability of funds, late sanctioning of Addendum &
Corrigendum, the work was extended upto 29.02.2020.
3. Thereafter, petitioner reminded the concerned department about the
preparation of final bill but it kept on evading on one pretext or the other.
Petitioner again made several requests to consider making payments qua the
items not paid in the final bill but the same did not fetch any result.
4. According to petitioner, due to failure of the obligations of
respondent, petitioner issued letter dated 02.08.2021 invoking Arbitration as
contained under clause 64 of the General conditions of the Contract, calling
upon the respondent to make the payment of the claims of the petitioner and
constitute the Arbitration Tribunal. In response thereto, respondent asked for
a waiver under section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Hence, the present petition has been filed.
5. During hearing, learned counsel for petitioner prays that sole
Arbitrator may be appointed to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
6. Learned counsel for respondent has objected to the averments made in
the present petition however, has submitted that the disputes are arbitrable.
7. In view of the above the present petition is allowed. Accordingly,
Mr.Rakesh Khanna, Senior Advocate (Mobile: 9810021863) is appointed
sole Arbitrator in this petition 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 21, 2021
ab
