Delhi High Court
J.S. Builder vs Dr. Girish Gupta on 19 July, 2024
Author: C.Hari Shankar
Bench: C.Hari Shankar
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ARB.P. 77/2024
J.S. BUILDER .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dhruv Gandhi and Mr.
Deepam Rangwani, Advs.
versus
DR. GIRISH GUPTA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Anuj Tyagi and Ms.
Akshita Agarwal, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
O R D E R (O R A L)
% 19.07.2024
1. This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act), for reference of the disputes
between the parties to arbitration.
2. The dispute arises out of a work order dated 12 January 2021
placed on the petitioner by the respondent. The work order envisaged
resolution of the disputes between the parties by arbitration. The
arbitration clause reads as under:
"Arbitration:- In the event of a dispute between the parties
arising out of condition or interpretation of this agreement, they
shall immediately endeavour to reach an amicable solution but if
they are unable to settle such dispute amicable then either of the
parties shall at any time be entitled to refer such dispute for
resolution by arbitrators subject to and in accordance with the rules
of the arbitration law. The decision of the majority of the
arbitrators shall be final and binding on the parties."
3. Mr. Deepam, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:ROHIT BARARIA ARB.P. 77/2024 Page 1 of 3 By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:22.07.2024 Signing Date:22.07.2024
16:18:52 16:17:25
parties had explored the possibility of an amicable resolution but the
attempts remained abortive.
4. In the circumstances, the petitioner addressed a notice under
Section 21 of the 1996 Act on 25 July 2023. The claim amount is ₹
32,80,631/-.
5. Mr. Tyagi, learned Counsel for respondent raises, as his only
objection to this petition, the contention that the petitioner had in fact
being over paid by an amount of ₹ 1,76,808/-. He also relies inter alia
on a document dated 12 March 2022 whereunder the petitioner is
stated to have admitted that no further financial liability of the
respondent remains qua him. He also submits that the petitioner is
vacillating, changing the claim amount time and again.
6. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in SBI General
Insurance Company Ltd v. Krish Spinning1, this aspect cannot be
fettered of referring the dispute to the arbitration. Para 135 of the said
decision reads as thus:
"135. The existence of the arbitration agreement as contained in
Clause 13 of the insurance policy is not disputed by the appellant.
The dispute raised by the claimant being one of quantum and not of
liability, prima facie, falls within the scope of the arbitration
agreement. The dispute regarding "accord and satisfaction" as
raised by the appellant does not pertain to the existence of the
arbitration agreement, and can be adjudicated upon by the arbitral
tribunal as a preliminary issue."
7. The dispute is referred to the Delhi International Arbitration
Centre (DIAC), who would appoint a suitable arbitrator to arbitrate on
MANU/SC/0719/2024
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:ROHIT BARARIA ARB.P. 77/2024 Page 2 of 3 By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:22.07.2024 Signing Date:22.07.2024
16:18:52 16:17:25
the disputes.
8. The arbitration shall take place in accordance with the rules and
regulations of the DIAC. The Arbitrator would be entitled to fees as
per the schedule of fees maintained by the DIAC. The Arbitrator shall
also file the requisite disclosure under Section 12 of the 1996 Act
within a week of entering the arbitration.
9. The right of the respondent to prefer counter claims, if any,
stands reserved.
10. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
JULY 19, 2024
ns
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:ROHIT BARARIA ARB.P. 77/2024 Page 3 of 3 By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:22.07.2024 Signing Date:22.07.2024
16:18:52 16:17:25
