Allowed

Era Infra Engineering Ltd. v. Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.

Delhi HC10 May 2018ARB.P./735/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition for reference to arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court held that limitation is not for the Court to decide at this stage. Justice Navin Chawla appointed a retired Supreme Court Judge as sole arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising from the agreement.

Era Infra Engineering Ltd. Vs Delhi State Industrial… — Specific Performance | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

ARB.P. 735/2017 ERA INFRA ENGINEERING LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Udit Seth, Adv.

¶4

versus

¶5

DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Anusuya Salwan, Adv.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 10.05.2018

¶10

The present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) seeking reference of the disputes that have arisen between the parties under contract Agreement dated 12^th March, 2004 for the work of construction of houses with cost effective technologies at Bhawana Industrial Complex. The said Agreement contains an Arbitration Agreement in form of Clause 25(ii).

¶11

The petitioner sought reference of the disputes to arbitration vide its letter dated 12^th June, 2017. The respondent, however, vide its letter dated 4^th July, 2017 refused such reference on the ground that the claims raised by the petitioner are barred by law of limitation. The petitioner has thereafter filed the present petition.

¶12

Counsel for the respondent submits that as the final bill of the petitioner was settled on 27^th October, 2008 (as far as civil works are concerned) and 30^th March,2007 (as far as electrical works are

¶13

concerned), the claims raised by the petitioner are ex facie barred by law of limitation. Counsel for the petitioner, however, disputes the said submission and contends that the petitioner had remained at site till 2016-17 and, therefore, the claim is within the period of limitation.

¶14

In terms of Section 11(6A) of the Act, the scrutiny of this Court at this stage is to be confined only to the existence of the Arbitration Agreement. Whether the claims raised by the petitioner are barred by law of limitation or not is a question to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal, may be as a preliminary issue. However, the same cannot be a ground to refuse appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal.

¶15

In view of the above, I appoint Dr.Justice Mukundakam Sharma , Retired Supreme Court Judge, Bungalow No.105, New Moti Bagh, New Delhi-110021 as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the abovementioned Agreement. The Arbitrator shall give his disclosure statement under Section 12 of the Act before proceeding with the reference.

¶16

The petition is disposed of with the above directions with no order as to costs.

¶17

Dasti.

¶18

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶19

MAY 10, 2018 RN

Era Infra Engineering Ltd. v. Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Era Infra Engineering Ltd. v. Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Brothers Vs Hscc (India) Limited & Anr.

The Deputy Secretary (Hospitals), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 1 Vs M/S Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd.

Sanjay Tractors and Automobiles Vs Cnh Industrial India Private Limited

Hcl Infosystems Ltd. Vs Mtnl

Larsen & Toubro Limited Vs Rail Vikas Nigam Limited

Larsen & Toubro Limited Vs Rail Vikas Nigam Limited