Disposed

M/S International Engineers and Project Consultants Limited v. Union of India and Anr.

Delhi HC21 Oct 2024ARB.P./220/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 11(6) seeking appointment of a new sole arbitrator after the previous arbitrator terminated his mandate in a railway contract dispute. The court rejected the respondent's plea to transfer the matter based on a 2023 monitoring guideline, appointed Brij Bhushan Gupta as sole arbitrator under DIAC aegis.

What did the court decide?

Brij Bhushan Gupta, Senior Advocate, appointed Sole Arbitrator; arbitration under DIAC; proceedings to resume from prior stage.

M/S International Engineers and Project Consultants Limited Vs… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 220/2024 & I.A. 33523/2024

¶4

M/S INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERS AND PROJECT CONSULTANTS LIMITED .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr Himanshu Mahajan and Mr Lakshay Chhabra, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Respondents

¶8

Through: Ms Uma Prasuna Bachu, SPC for UOI.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

¶11

O R D E R % 21.10.2024

¶12

This is a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of the Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties wherein the learned Sole Arbitrator held that the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal stood terminated.

¶13

The respondents invited tender vide Notice dated 13.05.1996. The petitioner participated in the same and Letter of Acceptance dated 30.01.1997 was issued to the petitioner by the respondents. Thereafter, the parties herein entered into a Contract Agreement dated 12.05.1997.

¶14

The arbitration clause is Clause 1 of the said Agreement which reads as under:-

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 23:44:14

¶17

“(1) DEMAND FOR ARBITRATION:

¶18

(i) In the event of any dispute or difference between the parties hereto as to the Construction or operation of this contract, or the respective rights and liabilities of the parties on any matter in question, dispute of difference on any account, or as to the withholding by the railway of any certificate to which the contractor may claim to be entitled to or if the Railway fails to make a-decision within a reasonable time, then and in any such case, save the “excepted matters” referred to in the Clause of these conditions, the Contractor after 90 days but within 180 days of his presenting his final claim on disputed matters, shall demand in writing that the dispute or difference be referred to arbitration.

¶19

(ii) The demand for arbitration shall specify the matters which are I question dispute or difference. Only such dispute(s) or difference(s) in respect of which the demand has been made shall be referred to arbitration and other matters shall not be inclined in the reference.

¶20

(iii) If the Contractor(s) does/do not prefer his/their specific and final claims in writing within a period of 90 days receiving the intimation from the Government that the final bill is ready for payment, he/they will be deemed to have waived his/their claim(s) and the Railway shall be discharged and released of all liabilities under the contract in respect of these claims.”

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 23:44:14

¶23

Since the disputes had arisen between the parties, the petitioner invoked the arbitration vide legal notice dated 26.12.2000.

¶24

This Court vide Order dated 09.05.2017 substituted the erstwhile Arbitrator and appointed Justice Sunita Gupta (Retd. Judge of this Court) as the Sole Arbitrator.

¶25

The learned Sole Arbitrator vide Order dated 06.01.2024 terminated the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal. Hence the present petition.

¶26

Notice was issued to the respondents on 15.07.2024.

¶27

An application being I.A. 33523/2024 is filed seeking substitution of the respondents with Union of India through GM/South Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata and PCSTE/South Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata. The basis of said application is a Letter dated 20.12.2023 issued by the Ministry of Railways wherein para (b) is extracted below:-

¶28

“b) In case the works of the contract being transferred belongs to more than one Railway, then associated court & arbitration cases shall be dealt by the Railway having higher TKM/quantum of work & accordingly these may transferred from CORE to Zonal Railways concerned before its closure.”

¶29

The same is disputed by Mr Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the same is only regarding monitoring of the cases and not to take effective steps for appointment of an Arbitrator.

¶30

I am in complete agreement with the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶31

The Letter dated 20.12.2023 reads as under:-

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 23:44:14

¶34

A perusal of the said Letter and more particularly the subject clause indicates that it is regarding the guidelines for monitoring of court cases pending with CORE and its projects. Further, on perusal of the arbitration clause between the parties, it shows that in case of a

¶35

This is a digitally signed order.

¶36

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 23:44:14

¶37

dispute between the parties, the same were to be referred to the „Arbitration‟. The guidelines issued vide letter dated 20.12.2023 cannot unilaterally overrule or overwrite the terms of the said Agreement between the parties. In addition, the erstwhile Arbitrator was also appointed by this Court only.

¶38

For the said reasons, the petition is allowed and the following directions are issued:-

¶39

i) Mr. Brij Bhushan Gupta, Senior Advocate (Mob. No. 9811348989) is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶40

ii) The arbitration will be held under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi (hereinafter, referred to as the „DIAC‟).

¶41

iii) The remuneration of the learned Sole Arbitrator shall be in terms of DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators‟ Fees) Rules, 2018.

¶42

iv) The learned Sole Arbitrator shall commence the proceedings from the stage where it has been left by the erstwhile Sole Arbitrator. Further, the learned Sole Arbitrator shall be entitled to take technical opinion, if required.

¶43

v) The parties agreed that they shall pay consolidated fees of Rs. 5 lakhs to the learned Sole Arbitrator since the matter is only for final hearing and passing of the Award. The amount of Rs. 5 lakhs shall be shared in equal proportion.

¶44

vi) The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration in terms of Section 12 of the Act prior to entering into the

¶45

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 23:44:14

¶46

reference.

¶47

vii) The parties shall approach the learned Arbitrator within two weeks from today.

¶48

With these directions, the present petition is disposed of.

¶49

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶50

OCTOBER 21, 2024 sr

¶51

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶52

This is a digitally signed order.

¶53

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 23:44:14

M/S International Engineers and Project Consultants Limited v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S International Engineers and Project Consultants Limited v. Union of India and Anr.

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

Central Bureau of Investigtation Vs Mahesh Agarwalla & Anr. & Ors.

Mr. Kabeer Proprietor of the Global Zone Hr Services Vs M/S Param Dairy Limited

M/S Singer India Limited Vs Varun Wadhwa Sole Proprietor Tanishq Enterprises

Kkh Finvest Private Limited & Anr. Vs Jonas Haggard & Ors.

Aditya Birla Finance Limited Vs Ana Transcom Private Limited and Ors.

Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Tarun Polymers through Its Partners and Ors.