Mcl Ksipl (Jv) vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 2624 Del

$~3
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                           Date of decision: 22.09.2021
+     ARB.P. 901/2021
      MCL KSIPL (JV)                                   ......Petitioner
                         Through:     Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Advocate

                         Versus

      UNION OF INDIA                                     ......Respondent
                    Through:          Ms. Monica Arora, CGSC with
                                      Mr.Shriram Tiwary, Advocate

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                         J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. Present petition has been preferred under Section 11(6) of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an

Arbitrator.

2. Petitioner claims to be carrying its business of construction works in

India. According to petitioner, respondent invited item rate tenders for the

work of "Completion of balance works for construction of dwelling units

including allied services for Officers JCOS/OR at Port Blair (Army)" and

petitioner's bid was accepted vide its letter dated 28/10/2014 for an amount

of Rs.438,29,06,684/ and time for completion of work was stipulated as 28

months.

3. Petitioner claims that the site for work was handed over to it by the

respondent on 22.12.2014 and therefore, the work was to be concluded by

21.04.2017. However, due to various hindrances on the part of respondent,

like non-availability of site, decisions and other hindrances and beaches of

contract, petitioner could complete the work on 15.05.2018. Further claimed

that the final bill was required to be submitted within three months so,

petitioner submitted the same on 14.08.2018 and respondent was under

obligation to clear it within six months i.e. on or before 13.02.2019.

However, respondent cleared the final bill on 06.09.2019 ignoring various

legitimate payments towards the petitioner. Also that even the defect

liability period of 24 months has been successfully accomplished by the

petitioner on 14.05.2020.

4. According to petitioner, when its persistent requests to clear the

outstanding amount failed, the petitioner finally invoked the arbitration

clause as per condition 60 on page 188 of the Contract Agreement vide its

letters dated 31.10.2019; 30.10.2020; 05.03.2021 and 17.06.2021 written to

the Engineer in Chief of the respondent requesting to appoint Arbitrator

within 30 days from 17.06.2021. However, since respondent did not appoint

any Arbitrator, hence, the present petition has been filed seeking

appointment of Arbitrator.

5. Learned Central Government Standing Counsel submits that the

claims made in the present petition are disputed, however, she has agreed

that an Arbitrator can be appointed to resolve the disputes between the

parties.

6. In view of the aforesaid, Justice (Retd.) B. S. Chauhan, former

Judge of Hon'ble Supreme Court, (Mobile: 9717393516) is appointed

sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

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

Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

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

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.

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

9. The present petition is accordingly disposed of.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 22, 2021/r