Balaji Constructions vs Shivani Dudani & Anr.
2021 Latest Caselaw 2924 Del

$~10
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                            Date of decision: 26.10.2021
+      ARB.P. 1008/2021
       BALAJI CONSTRUCTIONS                   ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr. K.S.Negi, Advocate

                          Versus

       SHIVANI DUDANI & ANR.                   ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Senior Advocate
                             with Mr.Sachin Jain, Mr. Himanshu
                             Yadav & Mr. Ishaan Gupta,
                             Advocates

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                          J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by petitioner seeking appointment

of Sole Arbitrator under the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration

and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. The Petitioner is a registered partnership and the respondents were the

owners of a free hold plot of land bearing No. 7 on Road No. A-23

measuring 420 sq. Mtrs (502.32 sq. Yds. Approx.) situated in the residential

colony, DLF City Phase-I, Gurugram, Haryana.

3. The petitioner entered into an Agreement on 15.06.2019 with the

respondents for development and construction of property bearing No. A-

23/7, DLF City Phase-I, Gurugram, Haryana. However, according to

petitioner, the respondents backed out/ resiled from performing their part of

the said agreement by raising frivolous issues and since the efforts to

amicably resolve the disputes arose between the parties, the petitioner

approached this Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation

Act, 1996 [O.M.P (I) (COMM.) No. 221/2021], which was disposed of vide

judgment/order dated order/judgment dated 28.07.2021. Thereafter,

petitioner claims to have made another effort for resolution of disputes,

however, upon its failure, petitioner sent a legal notice through its counsel

dated 13.08.2021 to the respondents proposing the name of sole arbitrator to

adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. The respondents instead of

accepting the name of proposed Sole Arbitrator, suggested the names of

three Arbitrators vide their reply dated 28.08.2021.

4. Since parties have not been able to reach at a consensus, learned

counsel for petitioner has therefore insisted upon for appointment of sole

Arbitrator by this Court.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent has disputed the

claims raised on behalf of petitioner, however, existence of Agreement dated

15.06.2019 and invocation of arbitration is not disputed.

6. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and Mr. Justice (Retd.)

Manmohan Singh is appointed sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute

between the parties.

7. The fees of the learned Arbitrator shall be according to Fourth

Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

8. With aforesaid directions, the present petition is accordingly disposed

of.

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

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE OCTOBER 26, 2021 r