Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S R.S. Builders vs Municipal Corporation Amritsar And Ors on 29 April, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058436
ARB-488-2023 (O&M) -1-
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:058436
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
277 ARB-488-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision:29.04.2024
M/s R.S. Builders
... Petitioner
Vs
Municipal Corporation, Amritsar and others
.... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. Dheeraj Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sarthak Soni, Advocate for
Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate for the respondents.
***
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') for
appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the
parties.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
given a work vide order dated 22.01.2020, Annexure P-1, for
augmentation of water supply pipe line of Amritsar Town under
AMRUT (Package-I). He submits that a contract agreement was
signed between the parties and clause 25 of the conditions of the
contract provides for reference of dispute to arbitrator/arbitral
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058436
ARB-488-2023 (O&M) -2-
Tribunal. He submits that in terms thereof, petitioner approached the
Executive Engineer by notice dated 14.06.2023, Annexure P-3, who
did not respond. He submits that after waiting for almost 3 months,
petitioner served a legal notice dated 08.09.2023, Annexure P-4,
invoking the arbitration clause without any result.
3. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the
respondents, which is taken on record, wherein it has been submitted
that the claim has not been submitted within a period of six months of
the date of completion as certified by the Engineer. Still further
another objection has been taken that the claim raised by the petitioner
is more than Rs.15 Crores.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the
Court to para 10 of the petition, which is supported with an affidavit
of the petitioner to submit that the approximate value of the claim is
around Rs.2 Crores and the notice invoking the arbitration clause,
Annexure P-4 has been served by raising an escalated claim. Counsel
further submits that the petitioner would file an appropriate claim
before the Arbitrator. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. Versus State of
Kerala, 2018 (14) SCC 265.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have considered
their respective submissions.
6. In Grasim Industries's case (supra), interpreting Section
28(b) of the Contract Act, 1872, Supreme Court has held that if a
restricted period for raising an arbitral dispute has been provided, the
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058436
ARB-488-2023 (O&M) -3-
same has to be treated as void. Consequently, the objections raised by
the respondents are rejected.
10. Petition is allowed.
11. Mr. Justice (Retd.) Darshan Singh, Former Judge of Punjab
and Haryana High Court, H.No.56, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh,
08558809940 is requested to act as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the
dispute between the parties, subject to compliance of statutory
requirements.
12. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Arbitrator
on date, time and place to be fixed by the Arbitrator at his
convenience.
13. Parties will be at liberty to raise all the
claims/defences/counter claims/pleas before the Arbitrator.
14. Needless to mention that all the questions arising between
the parties in this matter will remain open for determination in the
arbitration proceedings and any observation made hereinabove will
not be binding on the learned Arbitrator.
15. A request letter along with a copy of this order be sent to
Mr. Justice (Retd.) Darshan Singh.
29.04.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
pooja saini JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
