Allowed

Dsc Ltd. Best and Crompton Engineering Projects Ltd. Jv v. Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd.

Delhi HC16 Jan 2024O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/556/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court extended the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal by nine months, rejecting the respondent's objections regarding the eligibility of a substitute arbitrator and the non-payment of fees for counter claims, as these matters are governed by other provisions of the Act.

What did the court decide?

Mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal extended by a period of nine months with effect from 01.11.2023.

Dsc Ltd. Best and Crompton Engineering Projects Ltd. Jv Vs Rail… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~25

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 556/2023

¶4

DSC LTD BEST AND CROMPTON ENGINEERING PROJECTS LTD JV ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Khurana, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Jitender Kumar Singh, Ms. Anjali Kumari, Advocates.

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 16.01.2024

¶10

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“the Act”], for extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal which is in seisin of disputes between the parties under a contract pursuant to a notice inviting tender dated 15.04.2008.

¶11

The learned Arbitral Tribunal was first constituted pursuant to an order of this Court dated 21.02.2018 in ARB.P. 505/2017. It entered into the reference on 19.04.2018. The mandate of the Tribunal was thereafter extended from time to time. The Tribunal was reconstituted pursuant to the resignation of one of the learned arbitrators on 25.05.2023. The petitioner nominated a substitute arbitrator in place of the learned arbitrator who had resigned.

¶12

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 556/2023

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

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 18/05/2024 at 11:37:55

¶15

I am informed that proceedings before the learned Tribunal are at the stage of final arguments, which have re-commenced upon the reconstitution of the tribunal. The mandate of the tribunal has expired on 01.11.2023.

¶16

The principal objection taken by the respondent is that the substitute arbitrator appointed by the petitioner is ineligible, as he is not on the panel of arbitrators of the respondent. However, it is accepted that this objection has been rejected by a judgment of this Court dated 21.11.2023 in O.M.P.(T)(COMM) 106/2023. This Court has come to the view that there is no infirmity in constitution of the tribunal.

¶17

The only other ground taken by learned counsel for the respondent is that the respondents’ counter claims are not being adjudicated by the Tribunal as the petitioner did not pay its share of the arbitrator fees on account of the counter claims. I am of the view that this is not a matter which comes in the way of extension of the mandate under Section 29A of the Act. There are adequate provisions in the Act to deal with the consequences of non-payment of arbitral fees by either of the parties, either on account of claims or counter claims.

¶18

For the aforesaid reasons, the objections of the respondent are unmerited.

¶19

The petition is allowed and the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal is extended by a period of nine months with effect from 01.11.2023.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is in the process of considering whether to challenge the order of this Court dated 21.11.2023 before the Supreme Court. Needless to say, this order is not intended to prejudice such right of the respondent. Further proceedings

¶21

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 556/2023

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

¶24

before the Tribunal will be subject to any orders that the Supreme Court may pass in the event the judgment dated 21.11.2023 is challenged before the Supreme Court.

¶25

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶26

JANUARY 16, 2024 ‘Bhupi’/

¶27

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 556/2023

¶28

Page 3 of 3

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

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 18/05/2024 at 11:37:55

Dsc Ltd. Best and Crompton Engineering Projects Ltd. Jv v. Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dsc Ltd. Best and Crompton Engineering Projects Ltd. Jv v. Rail Vikas Nigam 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

Prayagraj Power Generation Company Ltd. Vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.

Ansal Housing Limited Vs Samyak Projects Private Limited & Anr.

Pnc Infratech Limited Vs National Highways Authority of India

Vivek Aggarwal and Anr. Vs Mr Hemant Aggarwal & Ors.

Brilltech Engineers Private Limited Vs Paarth Infrabuild Private Limited

Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs Nhpc Limited

Bliss Habitat Private Limited Vs Indiabulls Infraestate Limited

Imagine Realty Private Limited Vs Indiabulls Infraestate Limited

Normet India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nirman Vridhi Infra LLP & Anr.

Campus Active Wear Limited Vs Mr. Kuldeep Proprietor of- M/S Tyagi Trading Company

Prayagraj Power Generation Company Ltd. Vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.

S. S. Construction Vs G. E. T and D India Ltd. & Anr.

Mangloor Highways Private Limited Vs National Highways Authority of India

M/S.Tempcon Engineers Vs Union of India