Delhi High Court
Yfc Projects Private Limited vs Ramprastha Promoters And ... on 23 February, 2022
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 23.02.2022
+ ARB.P. 222/2022 & I.A. 2992/2022
YFC PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Vibhor Garg, Mr. Aditya
Bhardwaj, Mr. Keshav Tiwari and
Mr. Sidhant Bhatia, Advs.
versus
RAMPRASTHA PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE
LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Sougat Sinha and Ms. R.
Gayathri Manasa, 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 by the petitioner under Section 11
(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of
sole Arbitrator.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is a company
and is engaged in business of construction and other development activities.
Respondent is a non-government company and is a real estate developer
running its business operation in NCR region. Respondent during year 2010
obtained licence bearing No.40 of 2010 for development of group housing
society admeasuring 24.53 acres in sector 95 (in short 'Project'). Further,
respondent informed the petitioner that it had sold the FSI of the Project to
the Army Welfare Housing Organization (AWHO). As per the terms and
conditions entered between the AWHO and respondent, the development
rights were given to the respondent for construction of Multi Storied
Residential Towers and other related work for personal use of
member/allottees of AWHO. Respondent in furtherance of the contracts
which it had entered with AWHO, issued a letter of intent dated 25.05.2013
in favour of petitioner for execution of certain Civil & Structural Work for a
contract price of Rs.80,00,00,000/- in the Project. However, later certain
additional works were also awarded to petitioner relating to internal
Electrical, Sanitary & Plumbing work through a letter of intent on
10.06.2013 for a total amount of Rs.19,50,00,000/- and for installation of
Aluminium sub frames vide Work Order dated 12.07.2014 which was
costing around Rs. 41,65,000/-. Since the commencement of work in May
2013, the petitioner faced issues resulting from the lackadaisical attitude of
the respondent. There were no proper instructions with respect to the
construction activity and the respondent even had constant conflict with
AWHO, which resulted in termination of contract by AWHO with
respondent. In spite of satisfactory performance of work in accordance with
the drawing and data provided by the respondent, there was considerable
delay in the payments.
3. Petitioner further clams that in the year 2016 was informed by
respondent that further construction under the contract will not continue, on
account of certain disputes which arose between the respondent and AWHO.
Thereafter, with mutual consent it was decided that the contract shall stand
discharged and the petitioner shall submit final bills for the work done and
all payments due towards the pending bills shall be cleared by the
respondents. Thereafter, in May 2016, the final bills were also submitted by
the petitioner for the work done, which is also acknowledged by the
respondent. As such till date a principal amount of Rs. 5,22,97,877/- is still
due and payable by the respondent in favour of the petitioner. However,
despite the respondent's admitted liability the bills submitted by the
petitioner remains unpaid till date. Since the respondent failed to make
payment of the above stated liability, petitioner issued a demand notice
dated 14.08.2018 demanding payment of the principal amount of Rs.
5,22,97,877/- along with 18 % interest. However, respondent vide its reply
dated 23.08.2018 denied its liability and admitted the factum of dispute
between the parties and placed reliance on Clause 69 of the Contract
Agreement dated 25.05.2013 and claimed invocation of arbitration.
Consequently, petitioner by its legal notice dated 31.12.2021 invoked
arbitration which was served upon respondent vide email dated 31.12.2021,
however, respondent did not respond. Thereafter, again a reminder notice
dated 14.01.2022 was served upon the respondent and despite that, there was
no response from respondent. Hence, the present petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for respondent has entered appearance on advance
notice and submitted that though the claims raised in the present petition are
disputes, however disputes are arbitrable and Sole Arbitrator be appointed to
adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
5. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and Mr. Justice (Retd.)
Jayant Nath (Mobile: 8527959494) is appointed sole Arbitrator to
adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Needless to say, all the issues
between the parties shall remain open before the learned Sole Arbitrator.
6. 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.
7. The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.
8. The present petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending application is
disposed of as infructuous.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 23, 2022
rk
