Allowed

M.K. Industries v. Northern Railways

Delhi HC15 Apr 2024ARB.P./325/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator against Northern Railways due to non-payment and refusal to appoint. The Court appointed Ms. Sangeeta Bharti as the sole arbitrator under DIAC rules upon Railways' refusal to settle.

What did the court decide?

Appointed Ms. Sangeeta Bharti as the sole arbitrator; proceedings to be conducted under DIAC Rules; petition disposed of.

M.K. Industries Vs Northern Railways — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

ARB.P. 325/2024

¶4

M.K. INDUSTRIES ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Sourav Tyagi, Advocate (M: 9990220170).

¶6

versus

¶7

NORTHERN RAILWAYS ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, Advocate (Senior Panel Counsel) with Ms. Usha Jamnal, Advocate (M: 9810001315).

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R % 15.04.2024

¶9

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶10

The present petition is filed by the Petitioner-M.K. Industries under Section 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, 'the Act') for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of Clause 63 and Clause 64 (1) (ii) (b) of the Indian Railways Standard General Condition of Contract dated September, 2019 (hereinafter, 'the Contract').

¶11

It is claimed by the Petitioner that he was awarded a tender for construction of a boundary wall along Rani Jhansi Road DCM Colony on 4th April, 2016. Further, the Petitioner is stated to have completed construction on 31st July, 2017.

¶12

According to the Petitioner, there are certain outstandings on behalf of the Respondent- Northern Railways with respect to the final bill, the security deposit and release of performance bank guarantee. In response to such

¶13

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 23:51:33

¶14

outstandings, the Petitioner sent a demand notice dated 15th January, 2018 to the Respondent claiming an amount of Rs. 5,39,315/- with interest at 24% per annum. Vide letter dated 18th September, 2018, the Respondent took a stand that no payment is due to the Petitioner.

¶15

The Petitioner vide letter dated 18th January, 2020 invoked the arbitration clause in terms of Section 21 of the Act. In response to the same, the Railways vide letter dated 30th January, 2020 asked the Petitioner to give the waiver for Clause 12(5) of the Act, so that it could appoint its own gazetted officer within 30 days. This was agreed by the Petitioner and vide letter dated 12th February, 2020 the Petitioner waived off applicability of Section 12 (5) of the Act in terms of Clause 64 (1) (ii) (b) of the Contract. However, an arbitrator has not been appointed since then. Hence, the present petition.

¶16

Notice has been issued to the Respondent-Northern Railways. Ld. Counsel for the Northern Railways submits that as per her instructions, there is no possibility of settlement in this matter.

¶17

In view thereof, Ms. Sangeeta Bharti, Advocate (M: 9811112863), who is present in Court, is appointed as the ld. Sole Arbitrator. The Arbitration proceedings shall take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre ( hereinafter , ‘DIAC’) . The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted under the Rules of DIAC. The fee of the ld. Sole Arbitrator shall be as per the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended by the DIAC Rules.

¶18