Delhi High Court
M/S Arkas Energy Llp vs M/S Inox Wind Limited on 17 September, 2021
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 17.09.2021
+ ARB.P. 778/2021
M/S ARKAS ENERGY LLP ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Matragupta Mishra, Advocate
Versus
M/S INOX WIND LIMITED ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Aseem Chaturvedi, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 11(6) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an
Arbitrator.
2. Petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the
Limited Liability Partnerships Act, 2008. Respondent herein is a company
registered under the Companies Act, 1956, which provides wind energy
services including but not limited to manufacturing wind turbine generators.
3. According to petitioner, it was setting up an MW (2x2000 KW) wind
farm project at Mandsaur District in the State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein
vide letter dated 25.06.2015 being Order No. 002/ Arkas/2015-16, petitioner
had issued a work order for erection and commissioning of three INOX
made WT-2000 DF (93/80) 2000 KW capacity wind turbine generators
(WTG) at the site.
4. Further, vide letter dated 25.06.2015 being Order No.
001/Arkas/2015-16, petitioner claims to have issued a purchase order for
three INOX made WT-2000 DF 93/80) 2000 KW capacity wind turbine
generators (WTG) at the site. According to petitioner, the respondent was
also responsible for installation of power evacuation systems and shared
services, for evacuating power in the said project and had committed to the
commissioning of the WTGs not later than 31.03.2016 but the said date was
pushed several times.
5. Petitioner further claims that petitioner vide its letter dated 29.12.2015
asked the respondent to stick to the schedule however, despite repeated
requests respondent failed to execute its part of obligations towards timely
commissioning of the project. According to petitioner, respondent failed to
reply to petitioner's communication dated 14.04.2016 and has thereby failed
to commissioning of WTGs by 31.03.2016 and so, the commissioning
certificates could not be issued. Further claimed that petitioner's reminders
dated 19.04.2016, 22.04.2016 and 25.04.2016 and Demand Notice dated
03.05.2016 have not been acknowledged by the respondent.
6. Petitioner claims to have suffered huge loss due to failure on the part
of respondent to fulfil its part of obligations and therefore, it had issued a
letter dated 15.12.2020 along with a debit note for claim of compensation of
Rs.5,50,76,462/- with interest towards generation loss and loss of GBI, but
even this has not been acknowledged by the respondent. It is in such
circumstances, petitioner claims to have invoked 'Dispute Resolution Clause
No.13" in terms thereof, issued a notice dated 25.02.2021 to respondent
invoking arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
7. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submits
that vide aforesaid Notice dated 25.02.2021, petitioner has already
nominated its Arbitrator but respondent has failed to respond thereto within
stipulated time of 30 days, therefore, the preset petition be allowed.
8. During pendency of this petition, learned counsel for respondent had
sought time to obtain instructions. Today, it is submitted by learned counsel
that to resolve the disputes inter se parties, sole Arbitrator be appointed by
this Court.
9. In view of the aforesaid, Justice (Retd.) Kailash Gambhir (Mobile:
9871300033) is appointed sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between
the parties.
10. The fees of the learned Arbitrator shall be according to Fourth
Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
11. The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Arbitrator for information.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 17, 2021
r
