Disposed¶23

Adarsh Kaul (Prop.) v. Parnika Commercial and Estate Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC7 Apr 2025ARB.P./1543/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

ARB.P. 1543/2024, Delhi High Court, Jyoti Singh J, 07.04.2025 — Section 11(6) arbitration petition; consent appointment of sole arbitrator (Umang Tyagi, Advocate); DIAC aegis and DIAC fee rules; Section 12 disclosure; HVAC work orders IIT Mumbai, GSIDC Goa, DRDO Udaipur; MSMED-registered proprietor; claimed dues Rs.2,80,51,063/-; invocation notice 03.07.2024; existence of arbitration clause in two of three work orders left open; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. Umang Tyagi, Advocate as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the inter se disputes between the parties in connection with the three work orders; arbitration to be conducted under the aegis of DIAC per its procedures, with fees per the DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators' Fees) Rules, 2018. ¶23

Adarsh Kaul (Prop.) Vs Parnika Commercial and Estate Pvt. Ltd. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether an arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate the inter se disputes between the parties arising out of the three work orders. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

With the consent of the parties, Mr. Umang Tyagi, Advocate is appointed as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the inter se disputes between the parties in connection with the three work orders.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The arbitration will be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), governed by its procedures, with the arbitrator's fees in accordance with the DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators' Fees) Rules, 2018.

¶18

Key takeaways

The learned Arbitrator shall give disclosure under Section 12 of the 1996 Act before entering upon the reference.ratio¶21
The Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case; all rights and contentions of the respective parties with respect to their claims/counter claims, including existence of the arbitration agreement in two of the three work orders, are left open to be decided by the learned Arbitrator.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 — Adarsh Kaul (Prop.), proprietor of MSMED-registered M/s. VAV Air Conditioning, sought appointment of an arbitrator for inter se disputes with Parnika Commercial and Estate Pvt Ltd arising from three HVAC work orders (IIT Mumbai 02.04.2019; GSIDC Goa 02.04.2016; DRDO Udaipur 25.05.2019), claiming dues of Rs.2,80,51,063/-. Respondent consented, without prejudice, to appointment of a Sole Arbitrator. With the parties' consent, the Court appointed Mr. Umang Tyagi, Advocate as Sole Arbitrator; arbitration under the aegis of DIAC per its procedures and DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators' Fees) Rules, 2018; disclosure under Section 12 required before entering upon reference. Merits and existence of the arbitration agreement in two of the three work orders expressly left open to the Arbitrator. Petition disposed of.

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 1543/2024

¶4

ADARSH KAUL (PROP.) .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Gautam Dutta, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

PARNIKA COMMERCIAL AND ESTATE PVT LTD

¶8

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Mr. H.L. Narula, Ms. Rinku Narula and Mr. N.L. Anand, Advocates.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 07.04.2025

¶12

This petition is preferred on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’) seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the inter se disputes between the parties.

¶13

It is the case of the Petitioner that he is a Sole Proprietor of M/s. VAV Air Conditioning, a Sole Proprietorship Firm duly registered under MSMED Act, 2006 and is engaged in undertaking civil contracts for supply, installation, testing and commissioning of HVAC system and allied works. Respondent is stated to be a company engaged in carrying out turnkey projects involving civil construction work.

¶14

It is averred that Respondent awarded work orders to the Petitioner for supply, installation and commissioning of HVAC work at their project

¶15

ARB.P. 1543/2024 Page 1 of 3

¶16

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 15/04/2025 at 15:38:45

¶17

sites at IIT Mumbai, GSIDC Goa and DRDO Udaipur on 02.04.2019, 02.04.2016 and 25.05.2019, respectively. After the work orders were placed, Petitioner mobilised its finances, manpower, material, machinery etc. to endeavour to execute and complete the works within the stipulated periods and also made advance payments to his vendors, sub-agencies, labour etc. Petitioner states that after execution of the work orders, Respondent is liable to pay an amount of Rs.2,80,51,063/- to the Petitioner and Petitioner made several requests, both orally and in writing to the Respondent to release the amount, but to no avail, despite an assurance to resolve vide letter dated 21.08.2023. In light of the arbitration clause 2.5 in work order dated 02.04.2016 with respect to the project at GSIDC Goa and clause 14 in offer letter dated 11.01.2019 with respect to project at IIT Mumbai, Petitioner sent a notice dated 03.07.2024 invoking arbitration, which was duly served on the Respondent on 04.07.2024 but there was no response.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Respondent, on instructions, submits that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Respondent to refute and deny the allegations of outstanding amounts as also the liabilities under the work orders including existence of the arbitration clause in two of the three work orders, this Court may appoint a Sole Arbitrator. 5. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, Mr. Umang Tyagi, Advocate (Mobile No. 9999178173) is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the inter se disputes between the parties in connection with the three Work Orders, aforementioned. Arbitration will be conducted under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and will be governed by its procedures. Fees of the learned Arbitrator shall be in accordance with DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators’ Fees) Rules, 2018.

¶19

ARB.P. 1543/2024 Page 2 of 3

¶20

¶21

Learned Arbitrator shall give disclosure under Section 12 of the 1996 Act before entering upon reference.

¶22

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all rights and contentions of the respective parties with respect to their claims/counter claims including existence of arbitration agreement in two of the three work orders are left open to be decided by the learned Arbitrator.

¶23

Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶24

JYOTI SINGH, J

¶25

APRIL 7, 2025 S.Sharma/shivam

¶26

ARB.P. 1543/2024 Page 3 of 3

¶27

Adarsh Kaul (Prop.) v. Parnika Commercial and Estate Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adarsh Kaul (Prop.) v. Parnika Commercial and Estate Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh. N.K. Lakhanpal Vs S.K. Sharma

M/S Ncsl-Mtdcl Jv Vs Union of India

Eci Engineering and Construction Company Limited Vs National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited

Bharam Dutt Gupta Vs Sarju Kumar

Dharambir @ Dharambir Saini & Anr. Vs Pawan Kumar @ Pawan Kumar Saini & Ors.

Dr. Nakul Makkar Vs Mr. Dheeraj Makkar & Ors.