Voltas Limited vs Ncc Limited
2021 Latest Caselaw 3225 Del

$~17
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                             Date of decision: 26.11.2021
+      ARB.P. 1137/2021 & IA No. 15443/2021
       VOLTAS LIMITED                                    ..... Petitioner
                    Through:            Ms. Neelam Rathore, Mr. Sanjay
                                        Grover & Mr.Shivlal Singh,
                                        Advocates

                          Versus

       NCC LIMITED                                       ..... Respondent
                          Through:      Ms. Priya Kumar & Mr.Tejas
                                        Chhabra, Advocates.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                          J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. Petitioner- a company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian

Companies Act, 1913, claims to be engaged in the execution of turnkey

projects of heating, ventilation, air conditioning of entire buildings and large

plants. Respondent a joint venture of M/s CRSSG-NCC(JV), was awarded

construction and erection of a Medical College cum Hospital at Mandi,

Himachal Pradesh, who had further awarded the work to petitioner vide

letter of Intent dated 16.04.2010 for a fixed contract value of Rs. 21.90

crores, whereunder petitioner was responsible for the supply, erection and

commissioning of air conditioning equipment, in the five buildings, to be

constructed by the respondent i.e. Hospital, Nursing College, Medical

College, Administrative Block, and Utility Block, each having three to six

floors. However, certain disputes arose between the parties during execution

of the work and respondent invoked the bank guarantee to the tune of

Rs.4.28 crores, followed by termination of work order on 01.07.2013.

Thereafter, in a petition preferred by the petitioner, this Court vide order

dated 30.08.2013 [in ARB.P. 284/2013] appointed an Arbitrator for

adjudication of disputes between the parties.

2. Before commencement of arbitral proceedings, parties entered into

Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 18.09.2013 settling their

differences, and agreeing to the resumption of the work on certain new terms

and conditions. However, again certain disputes arose and petitioner filed

petition under Section 11(5) of the Act [ARB. P. 292/2015] and vide order

dated 13.08.2015, both the sides consented that the disputes may be referred

to the Arbitrator already appointed by this Court vide order dated

30.08.2013 in ARB.P. 284/2013. The proceedings before the arbitral

tribunal were at the stage of final hearing when due to Covid pandemic, the

proceedings had to be deferred in January, 2020.

3. At the hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has

submitted that the parties were in communication with the learned Arbitrator

through e-mail and on some occasions the arbitral proceedings were held

further, however, some misunderstanding on the issue of fixing dates of

hearings arose with the respondent herein and thereafter, the learned

Arbitrator has recused himself and conveyed his inability to act as an

Arbitrator.

4. At the hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent has

unequivocally accepted no grievance against the learned Arbitrator,

however, has submitted that since the learned Arbitrator has recused himself

from proceeding further in the matter, the present petition be allowed.

5. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and Mr. Justice Pradeep

Nandrajog (Retd.) (Mobile:981000130) is appointed sole Arbitrator in this

petition to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

6. The arbitration shall be conducted under the Delhi International

Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The fee of the learned Arbitrator shall be in

accordance with the schedule of fees prescribed under the Delhi

International Arbitration Centre (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators' Fees)

Rules, 2018.

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

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.

8. Needless to say that the learned Arbitrator shall proceed with the

matter at the stage where proceedings were deferred.

9. The present petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending application

also stands disposed of as infructuous.

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

information.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE NOVEMBER 26, 2021 r