$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 02.02.2022
+ ARB.P. 1176/2021
OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. K.R. Sasiprabhu and Mr. Tushar
Bhardwaj, Advs.
versus
GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG CO LTD ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Sumit Chander and Mr. Gurdeep
Chauhan, 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 (4) (a) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of sole
Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes with respondent.
2. Petitioner is a statutory body established under the Oil Industry
Development Act, 1974. Respondent is company incorporated under the
Companies Act. Petitioner claims to have invited bids for interior works
(including internal electricals) for ground First, Second and Third Floor of G
+ 3 Block of the Oil Industry Development Board Office at Plot No.02,
Sector 73, Noida. Respondent participated in the said bid and was successful ARB.P. 1176/2021 Page 1 of 4 in the same. Subsequently, petitioner vide its letter dated 04.06.2008
accepted the respondent's bid and in furtherance thereof, an
Agreement/Contract dated 25.06.2008 was executed between the parties. As
per the said Contract, respondent was required to coordinate and consult
Engineers India Limited (EIL) for the proper execution of the project work.
However, there were gross delays in the execution of the contractual work
by the respondent due to which the petitioner had terminated the contract
and encashed the bank guarantees to realise Liquidated Damages, which
respondent was liable to pay to the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid
Agreement/Contract.
3. According to petitioner, respondent thereafter raised a dispute under
the Contract and in terms of clause 82.1 of the GCC sought settlement by
way of arbitration. Respondent vide letters dated 17.03.2011 and 29.04.2011
requested the respondent for appointment of an Arbitrator. However,
petitioner thereafter vide letter dated 18.05.2011 appointed the sole
Arbitrator and the proceedings commenced. Also, respondent filed petition
seeking appointment of Arbitrator before this Court being Arbitration
Petition No.74 of 2011, however, the said petition was dismissed as
infructuous vide Order dated 19.05.2011 passed by this Court. The learned ARB.P. 1176/2021 Page 2 of 4 sole Arbitrator conducted the Arbitration Proceedings and passed the Award
dated 25.06.2008. Nevertheless, the said Award was challenged by
petitioner before this Court vide OMP No.601 of 2012 inter alia on the
grounds that the learned sole Arbitrator had rejected the Counter Claims of
the petitioner on the only ground that those were never claimed prior to the
Arbitration Proceedings. The said OMP No.601/2012 was partially allowed
by this Court vide judgement dated 16.09.2019 wherein it was observed as
under:
"37. In view of the above, the Award insofar as it refuses to consider the counter-claim of the petitioner is set aside, leaving it open to the petitioner to agitate its claims in accordance with law."
4. In terms of the liberty granted by this Court vide judgement dated
16.09.2019, petitioner sent a letter dated 26.02.2020 to the learned sole
Arbitrator requesting to reconvene the proceedings and to decide its Counter
Claims. Learned sole Arbitrator vide email dated 04.03.2020 consented to
enter upon reference and decide counterclaims of OIDB as in terms of the
liberty granted by this Court. The first hearing through video conferencing
was held on 24.06.2020, wherein respondent also agreed to continue the
Arbitration and accordingly case was re-opened but due to ongoing ARB.P. 1176/2021 Page 3 of 4 pandemic, further hearing could not be held. Now, the learned sole
Arbitrator vide his email dated 7.10.2021 has expressed his inability to
conduct the arbitration proceedings and rescued himself from arbitration.
Hence, the present petition has been filed.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent has agreed to the
appointment of substituted sole Arbitrator by this Court for adjudication of
dispute between the parties.
6. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly,
Mr. Justice (Retd.) Indermeet Kaur (Mobile: 9910384614) is appointed
sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
7. The fee of the learned Arbitrator shall be governed by the 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. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Arbitrator for information.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE FEBRUARY 02, 2022/rk ARB.P. 1176/2021 Page 4 of 4
