Disposed

M/S Dps Construction v. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd.

Delhi HC14 May 2024ARB.P./633/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act seeking constitution of a tribunal over disputes of about Rs.20 crores under two terminated construction agreements. With the petitioner's nominee having withdrawn, the Court appointed S.C. Malik as petitioner's nominee and Justice M.R. Shah as presiding arbitrator, with arbitration under DIAC aegis.

What did the court decide?

Three-member arbitral tribunal appointed; arbitration to proceed under DIAC; petition disposed.

M/S Dps Construction Vs Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~32

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 633/2024 and I.A. 10894/2024

¶4

M/S DPS CONSTRUCTION ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Atul Kumar & Ms. Aatrayi Das & Ms. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advs. (M- 9315148874 )

¶6

versus

¶7

GANNON DUNKERLEY AND CO. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Appearance not given.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 14.05.2024

¶12

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶13

The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner-M/s DPS Construction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator.

¶14

It is stated in the petition that two agreements dated 22nd June, 2022 and 13th December, 2022 (hereinafter, ‘agreements’) were entered into between the parties herein. The agreement dated 22nd June, 2022 was entered with regard to work-civil repair and maintenance works at DTA, SEZ and OMSH plants of Reliance Industries Ltd. (RIL) at Jamnagar. The agreement dated 13th December, 2022 was entered into between the parties with respect to work- minor project construction (PMC) work for DTA Township, PCG-DTA/SEZ, C2 and SEZ of Reliances Industries Ltd. (RIL) at Jamnagar.

¶15

The background of the case is that the said two agreements were terminated by the Respondent-M/s Gannon Dunkerley and Corporation Limited vide letters dated 10th August, 2023. However, at the time of

¶16

ARB.P. 633/2024

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

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 02/07/2025 at 00:07:29

¶19

termination, it is alleged that the Respondent was liable to pay an outstanding amount of approximately Rs. 20 Crores. Disputes arose between the parties for non-payment of alleged dues and the Petitioner vide notice dated 11th January, 2024 invoked arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Petitioner is stated to have nominated Mr. Hemendra P. Baxi (Retd. District and Sessions Judge in Rajkot) as their arbitrator while the Respondent is stated to have nominated Mr. Sundeep Nayak.

¶20

However, Mr. Baxi for some reasons had refused to accept the nomination. Hence the present petition for constitution of the Tribunal. 6. The Court has heard ld. Counsels for the parties. The claims of the Petitioner are to the tune of approximately Rs.20 crores under both the agreements. The Respondent’s case is that it has claims of more than Rs.98 crore against the Petitioner.

¶21

Considering the nature of the claims, both parties submit that a three member tribunal would be appropriate. Accordingly, in place of Mr. Baxi, who was the Petitioner’s nominee, Mr. S.C. Malik, Additional District & Session Judge Delhi (Retd.) Mob: 9910384635 is appointed as the Petitioner’s nominee. Justice M.R. Shah (Former Judge, Supreme Court of India) Mob: 9825049081 is appointed as the Presiding Arbitrator with the consent of the parties.

¶22

Both the parties give consent for the arbitration to take place under the aegis of the DIAC.

¶23

Accordingly, let the arbitration take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre ( ‘DIAC’ ). The fee of the Arbitrator shall be paid in terms of the 4th Schedule as amended by DIAC Rules, 2023.

ARB.P. 633/2024

Page 2 of 3

List before the DIAC on 4th July, 2024.

¶28

Let a copy of the present order be emailed to Secretary, DIAC on email id- [email protected].

¶29

The petition is disposed of. All pending applications are also disposed

¶30

¶31

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

¶32

MAY 14, 2024 Rahul/rks

¶33

ARB.P. 633/2024

¶34

Page 3 of 3

¶35

M/S Dps Construction v. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Dps Construction v. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. 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

Tata Capital Limited Vs M/S Prime Bizworld Private Limited & Ors.

Union of India Vs Inderjit Mehta Constructions Private Limited

M/S Shri Ram Electrial Works Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

M/S Safari Digital Education Initiatives Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Modern Sr Sec School

Supreme Infrastructure India Limited Vs Union of India & Anr.

Saeed Akhtar Zaidi and Another Vs Iqbal Akhtar Zaidi and Othres