Allowed

Jagtar Singh v. Muncipal Corporation of Delhi

Delhi HC12 Jan 2024ARB.P./987/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, this Court appointed Mr. Harish Dudani as the sole arbitrator to decide disputes between the petitioner and respondent arising from a parking site allotment agreement, directing proceedings under DIAC Rules.

What did the court decide?

Appointed Mr. Harish Dudani as sole arbitrator; directed arbitration under DIAC Rules; required declaration under Section 12.

Jagtar Singh Vs Muncipal Corporation of Delhi — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~2

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

ARB.P. 987/2023 JAGTAR SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Arun Balta and Mr. Abdul Vahid, Advs.

¶4

versus

¶5

MUNCIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Vishal Kumar, Adv. (Through VC)

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 12.01.2024

¶7

The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“the Act”] for appointment of an arbitrator to decide the disputes which have arisen between the parties under an Agreement pursuant to a tender dated 06.04.2022 issued by the respondent for allotment of parking sites.

¶8

The petitioner participated in the Tender and was issued a Letter of Intent dated 14.06.2022. The arbitration clause contained in Clause 32.2 of the tender documents provides for arbitration by a sole arbitrator to be nominated by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Delhi is designated as the venue of the arbitration. The courts in Delhi have also been vested with exclusive jurisdiction in respect of all the disputes between the parties.

¶9

In view of the disputes having arisen between the parties, the petitioner invoked arbitration by a communication dated 24.07.2023, which did not elicit a response.

¶10

Page 1 of 2

¶11

ARB.P. 987/2023

¶12

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 16/05/2024 at 12:13:57

¶13

The parties were given an opportunity to settle their disputes but I am informed by learned counsel for the parties that the attempt has been unsuccessful.

¶14

In these circumstances, learned counsels for the parties submit that an arbitrator may be appointed for adjudication of the disputes. It is undisputed that an independent arbitrator is required to be appointed in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court inter alia in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC Anr. vs HSCC (India) Ltd. [(2020) 20 SCC 760].

¶15

The petition is allowed and disputes between the parties arising out of the aforesaid Agreement are referred to the arbitration of Mr. Harish Dudani, former District Judge [9910384728]. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that the arbitration will be held under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Shershah Road, New Delhi [“DIAC”], and will be governed by the Rules of DIAC, including as to remuneration of the learned Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration under Section 12 of the Act, prior to entering upon the reference.

¶16

If the respondent has counter claims, those may also be placed before the learned Arbitrator in accordance with law.

¶17

It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the rights and contentions of the parties on merits, which are reserved for adjudication by the learned Arbitrator.

¶18

The petition is disposed of with these directions.

¶19

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶20

JANUARY 12, 2024/ ssc/

¶21

Page 2 of 2

¶22

ARB.P. 987/2023

¶23

Jagtar Singh v. Muncipal Corporation of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagtar Singh v. Muncipal Corporation of Delhi

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 Bansal Construction Co. Vs Union of India

Bhaswati Ghosh and Ors. Vs Raj Bahadur Singh

Shri Pratap Singh Vs Gnctd

Gammon Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Vs NTPC Ltd.

Gammon Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S NTPC Ltd.

Aakash Educational Services Ltd. Vs Mr. Tony Jose