Allowed

J.S. Builder v. Dr. Girish Gupta

Delhi HC19 Jul 2024ARB.P./77/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court referred the dispute arising from a work order to arbitration under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court rejected the respondent's objection regarding alleged overpayment, holding that such issues pertain to the merits or preliminary issues for the arbitral tribunal, not the existence of the arbitration agreement, relying on Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Dispute referred to Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) for appointment of an arbitrator.

J.S. Builder Vs Dr. Girish Gupta — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~3

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 77/2024

¶4

J.S. BUILDER .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Dhruv Gandhi and Mr. Deepam Rangwani, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

DR. GIRISH GUPTA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Anuj Tyagi and Ms. Akshita Agarwal, Advs.

¶8

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

¶9

O R D E R (O R A L) % 19.07.2024

¶10

1. This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act), for reference of the disputes between the parties to arbitration.

¶11

2. The dispute arises out of a work order dated 12 January 2021 placed on the petitioner by the respondent. The work order envisaged resolution of the disputes between the parties by arbitration. The arbitration clause reads as under:

¶12

“Arbitration : - In the event of a dispute between the parties arising out of condition or interpretation of this agreement, they shall immediately endeavour to reach an amicable solution but if they are unable to settle such dispute amicable then either of the parties shall at any time be entitled to refer such dispute for resolution by arbitrators subject to and in accordance with the rules of the arbitration law. The decision of the majority of the arbitrators shall be final and binding on the parties.”

¶13

3. Mr. Deepam, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 22.0 7.2024 16:17:25

¶17

Digitally Signed By:ROHIT BARARIAARB.P. 77/2024 Signing Da te:2 2.07.2024 16:18:52

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

parties had explored the possibility of an amicable resolution but the attempts remained abortive.

¶20

4. In the circumstances, the petitioner addressed a notice under Section 21 of the 1996 Act on 25 July 2023. The claim amount is ₹ 32,80,631/-.

¶21

5. Mr. Tyagi, learned Counsel for respondent raises, as his only objection to this petition, the contention that the petitioner had in fact being over paid by an amount of ₹ 1,76,808/-. He also relies inter alia on a document dated 12 March 2022 whereunder the petitioner is stated to have admitted that no further financial liability of the respondent remains qua him. He also submits that the petitioner is vacillating, changing the claim amount time and again.

¶22

6. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Company Ltd v. Krish Spinning¹ , this aspect cannot be fettered of referring the dispute to the arbitration. Para 135 of the said decision reads as thus:

¶23

“135. The existence of the arbitration agreement as contained in Clause 13 of the insurance policy is not disputed by the appellant. The dispute raised by the claimant being one of quantum and not of liability, prima facie, falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement. The dispute regarding "accord and satisfaction" as raised by the appellant does not pertain to the existence of the arbitration agreement, and can be adjudicated upon by the arbitral tribunal as a preliminary issue.”

¶24

7. The dispute is referred to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), who would appoint a suitable arbitrator to arbitrate on

¶25

1 MANU/SC/0719/2024 Signature Not Verified

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Page 2 of 3 By:CHANDRASHEKHARANHARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 22.0 7.2024 16:17:25

¶28

Digitally Signed By:ROHIT BARARIAARB.P. 77/2024 Signing Da te:2 2.07.2024 16:18:52

¶29

the disputes.

¶30

8. The arbitration shall take place in accordance with the rules and regulations of the DIAC. The Arbitrator would be entitled to fees as per the schedule of fees maintained by the DIAC. The Arbitrator shall also file the requisite disclosure under Section 12 of the 1996 Act within a week of entering the arbitration.

¶31

9. The right of the respondent to prefer counter claims, if any, stands reserved.

¶32

10. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶33

C.HARI SHANKAR, J

¶34

JULY 19, 2024

¶35

¶36

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 22.0 7.2024 16:17:25

¶40

Digitally Signed By:ROHIT BARARIAARB.P. 77/2024 Signing Da te:2 2.07.2024 16:18:52

¶41

Page 3 of 3

J.S. Builder v. Dr. Girish Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.S. Builder v. Dr. Girish Gupta

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

Maruti Traders Vs Itron India Pvt. Ltd.

Tushar Chawla Vs Mr Tarun Sikka

M/S Irb Ahmedabad Vadodara Super Express Tollways Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Highways Authority of India

Meghalaya Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd.

Accelerate Productx Ventures Private Limited Vs Reejh Essentials

Jitender Kumar Govt. Contractors & Engineers Vs Public Works Departments