Delhi High Court
Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. ... vs Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital ... on 11 February, 2022
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 11.02.2022
+ ARB.P. 57/2022
SARVESH SECURITY SERVICES PVT. LTD. THROUGH: ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY COL. RETD. S.N. P. SINGH
..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sneha Singh, Advocate
Versus
SANJAY GANDHI MEMORIAL HOSPITAL THROUGH: ITS
MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT GNCT OF DELHI
..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Anjum Javed, Additional Standing
Counsel for GNCTD
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 the petitioner under Section 11
(6) (c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of
an Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes with respondent.
2. Petitioner- a Pvt. Ltd. Company incorporated under the Indian
Companies Act, 1956, claims to be an Ex-Servicemen Agency providing
employment to approximately 300 Ex-Servicemen and to over 1,000
civilians.
3. According to petitioner, a Tender No. 2014_SGMH_73756_1 dated
29.12.2014 was floated by respondent- Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital,
New Delhi, inviting bids to provide Security Services to the said hospital,
which was awarded to the petitioner by the respondent's letter dated
26.03.2015 to deploy the security guards in the respondent's premises from
the next day itself. To this effect, an Agreement dated 27.03.2015 was
entered between the parties. However, during execution of the work,
respondent has failed to release the due payment to the petitioner for the
Security Guards services rendered to them for the period of March 2015 till
December 2018 and also failed to release the security deposit in the form of
FDR amounting to Rs. 15,45,000/- in spite of repeated requests
4. The claim of petitioner is that petitioner has provided the satisfactory
services to the respondent and only therefore, respondent has time and again
extended the contract, however, payments have remained unpaid. It is also
claimed that petitioner's requests to respondent vide communications dated
14.08.2019, 06.01.2020 and 28.12.2020 to amicably resolve the disputes
have also remained unanswered, therefore, petitioner its letter dated
15.06.2021 to the respondent invoked arbitration and requested for
appointment of an Arbitrator in term of Clause -22 (a) of the General
Conditions of Contract. It has also been averred in the petition that another
petition between the parties being ARB.P. 452/2015 was also disposed of by
this Court, against which an appeal [O.M.P. (COMM) 290/2017] is pending.
However, for the disputes, which is subject matter of this petition, an
Arbitrator is sought to be appointed, as the respondent has failed to appoint
an Arbitrator.
5. Today, learned Additional Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of
respondent has submitted that though the claims raised in the present
petition are disputed, however, he has instructions to submit that this Court
may appoint an Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties.
6. Pertinently, the allocation of tender / contract by the respondent by
virtue of letter dated 26.03.2015 and execution of Agreement dated
27.03.2015 between the parties in respect thereof is not disputed. It is also
not disputed that vide letter dated 15.06.2021, petitioner has invoked
arbitration calling upon to appoint an Arbitrator in term of Clause -22 (a) of
the General Conditions of Contract. However, in view of Hon'ble Supreme
Court's decision in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. Vs. HSCC
(India) Ltd. 2019 SCC Online SC 1517, respondent cannot be permitted to
appoint Arbitrator of its choice and so, learned counsel for respondent has
rightly consented to the appointment of an independent and impartial
Arbitrator by this Court.
7. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and Mr. T.R. Naval,
DHJS (Retd.) (Mobile: 9910384662) is appointed the sole Arbitrator to
adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
8. The arbitration shall be conducted under the Delhi International
Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The fee of the Arbitrator shall be in accordance
with the Schedule of Fees prescribed under the Delhi International
Arbitration Centre (DIAC) (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators Fees)
Rules, 2018.
9. The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.
10. The present petition and pending application, if any, are accordingly
disposed of.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 11, 2022
r
