Allowed

Kinshuk Goel Prop. M/S Ganesha International v. Ministry of Defence, Government of India through Directorate General of Ordnance Services

Delhi HC4 Sept 2024ARB.P./705/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Supply order dispute over claims of about ₹9.25 crores (with interest around ₹16 crores). Respondent's only substantial objection was limitation, conceded unavailable at the Section 11(6) stage following SBI General Insurance v Krish Spinning. Court appointed Ms Manisha Singh as sole arbitrator, leaving all objections including limitation open.

What did the court decide?

Disputes referred to arbitration; Ms Manisha Singh appointed sole arbitrator; all objections including limitation left open.

Kinshuk Goel Prop. M/S Ganesha International Vs Ministry of… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 705/2024

¶4

KINSHUK GOEL PROP. M/S GANESHA INTERNATIONAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vibor Garg and Ms. Anshika Maheshwari, Advocates versus

¶5

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA THROUGH DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF ORDNANCE SERVICES .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC with Ms. Shreya Jetly, Advs. & Mr. Vivek Nagar, GP

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

¶7

¶8

JUDGMENT (ORAL) 04.09.2024

¶9

1. This is a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996¹ , for reference of the disputes between the parties to arbitration.

¶10

2. Mr. Jetly, learned Central Government Standing Counsel submits that the only substantial ground that the respondent is raising is that the claims of the petitioner are barred by time. He, however, fairly acknowledges that this ground may not be available to the respondent under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act in view of the recent enunciation of law in SBI General Insurance Co Ltd v Krish Spinning² , but prays that the respondent may be permitted to raise the

¶11

1 “the 1996 Act”, hereinafter

¶12

2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754

¶13

Signature Not VerifiedARB. P. 705/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:0 6.09.2024 14:56:51

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 06.0 9.2024 14:56:09

¶16

issue before the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶17

3. The dispute arises in the context of a Supply Order dated 18 March 2016 which envisages resolution of disputes between the parties by arbitration. The arbitration clause in the Supply Order reads thus

¶18

“3. Arbitration . All disputes or differences arising out of or in connection with the Supply Order shall be settled by bilateral discussions. Any dispute, disagreement or question arising out of or relating to the Supply Order or relating to construction of performance, which cannot be settled amicably, may be resolved through arbitration. The Arbitration is as per Form DPM-7 and DPM-8 (Available in MoD website and can be provided on request). Defence Secretary/Additional Secretary/CFA will be appointing authority for appointment of Arbitrator to decide the dispute.”

¶19

4. Though the arbitration clause envisages appointment of the Arbitrator by the Defence Secretary/Additional Secretary/CFA, that covenant cannot be operated in view of Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act read with the judgments of the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v HSCC (India) Ltd³ , Bharat Broadband Network Ltd v United Telecoms Ltd⁴ and Haryana Space Application Centre (HARSAC) v Pan India Consultants Pvt Ltd⁵ .

¶20

5. The petitioner invoked arbitration by notice dated 12 March 2024 issued under Section 21 of the 1996 Act. The principal amount claimed by the petitioner against the respondent is in the region of ₹ 9.25 crores, though, Mr. Garg submits that, with interest, the total

¶21

3 (2020) 20 SCC 760

¶22

4 (2019) 5 SCC 755

¶23

5 ( 2021 ) 3 SCC 103

¶24

Signature Not VerifiedARB. P. 705/2024

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 06.0 9.2024 14:56:09

¶27

Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:0 6.09.2024 14:56:51

¶28

claim may work out to approximately ₹16 crores.

¶29

6. As the respondent did not reply to the Section 21 notice issued by the petitioner, this Court is compelled to exercise jurisdiction under Section 11 (6) of the 1996 Act and appoint an Arbitrator.

¶30

7. Accordingly, the disputes stand referred to arbitration. This Court appoints Ms Manisha Singh, Advocate (Tel. 9167255410) to arbitrate on the disputes between the parties.

¶31

8. The fees of the Arbitrator shall be settled by the Arbitrator in consultation with the parties.

¶32

9. The Arbitrator is also requested to file the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the 1996 Act within a week of entering on reference.

¶33

10. All questions of fact and law, including preliminary objections as well as objections on merits, which would also include the submission of the respondent that the petitioner’s claims are barred by time, shall remain open to be agitated before the Arbitrator.

¶34

11. The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶35

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶36

SEPTEMBER 4, 2024/ yg

¶37

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶38

Signature Not VerifiedARB. P. 705/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:0 6.09.2024 14:56:51

¶39

Page 3 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 06.0 9.2024 14:56:09

Kinshuk Goel Prop. M/S Ganesha International v. Ministry of Defence, Government of India through Directorate General of Ordnance Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kinshuk Goel Prop. M/S Ganesha International v. Ministry of Defence, Government of India through Directorate General of Ordnance Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Kespl-Eswar-Abcpl Jv Vs M/S Knr-Jkm Jv

Mr. Mohammad Eshrar Ahmed Vs M/S Tyshaz Buildmart India Private Limited

Maneesh Goel Vs Anand Divine Developers Private Limited & Anr.

Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (Morth) through Its Chief Engineer (Nh Randb) Vs M/S Dilip Buildcon Limited and Mostobudivelnyi Zahin No 112 (Joint Venture) (Ms Dbl Mbz Jv)

Celsius Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deepti Gambhir Proprietor of S P Distributors

Emco Limited Vs Delhi Transco Limited