Dismissed

M/S Mohit Construction Company v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Oct 2023ARB/172/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court appointed a sole arbitrator subject to the condition that the petitioner pays a 3% security deposit of the claimed amount as per the agreement's dispute resolution clause. The court appointed a retired District Judge and directed parties to appear before him.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Sh. Karnail Singh Ahhi as sole Arbitrator, subject to petitioner making 3% security deposit.

M/S Mohit Construction Company Vs Dakshin Haryana Bijli… — Arbitration | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

2023:PHHC:133800

¶2

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh

¶3

ARB-172-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision:-13.10.2023

¶4

M/s Mohit Construction Company … Petitioner Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others ... Respondents

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

¶6

Present:Mr. Lajpat Rai Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶7

Ms. Prerna Malhotra, Advocate for Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate for the respondents.

¶8

¶9

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J . (Oral)

¶10

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of provisions of Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶11

The dispute arises out of agreement/contract dated 16.8.2019 (Annexure P-1) as per which the respondent – department has allotted a tender work to the petitioner vide memo No.Ch-48/EOH-736/111 dated 141.9.2020 for whitewashing at Vidyut Nagar Colony, Hisar, NIT No.18/EOH-736/VOL111/2019-20 dated 16.8.2019 with approximate cost of Rs.97,16,946/- with a time limited of 12 months. The scope of work was also enhanced by the Estate Officer vide memo No.Ch-48/EOH-736/111 dated 11.9.2020 on the

¶12

Pankaj Kakkar 2023.10.13 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶13

ARB-172-2023 (O&M) ( 2 )

¶14

2023:PHHC:133800

¶15

same rates upto 12.12.2020. A dispute having arisen as regards payment, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 19.12.2022 (Annexure P-5) upon the respondents for invocation of arbitration, but to no avail.

¶16

Clause – 73 of agreement/contract dated 16.8.2019 (Annexure P-1) provides for dispute resolution through ‘Arbitration’.

¶17

The only objection raised on behalf of the respondents for appointment of an Arbitrator is that the petitioner has not come forward to make the security deposit to the tune of 3% of the total claimed amount in accordance with Clause – 73(vii) of agreement/contract dated 16.8.2019 (Annexure P-1).

¶18

Learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the petitioner undertakes to make such deposit within a period of three weeks from today.

¶19

Both the learned counsel are ad idem that Arbitrator may be appointed subject to make the security deposit to the tune of 3% of the total claimed amount by the petitioner.

¶20

Accordingly, Sh. Karnail Singh Ahhi, District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) is appointed as the sole Arbitrator. However, such appointment would be subject to the declaration to be made by Sh. Karnail Singh Ahhi, District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) under Section 12 of the Act with regard to his independence and impartiality to settle the disputes between the parties.

¶21

The Arbitrator shall be paid fee in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Act, as amended or as may be mutually settled by the parties and the Arbitrator.

¶22

The Arbitrator may conduct proceedings at Arbitration Centre, Chandigarh or at any other place convenient to all concerned.

¶23

Pankaj Kakkar 2023.10.13 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶24

ARB-172-2023 (O&M) ( 3 )

¶25

2023:PHHC:133800

¶26

After seeking convenience of the Arbitrator, the parties are directed to appear before him on 9.11.2023 at 11:00 A.M. or any other date suitable to all concerned.

¶27

A copy of this order be sent to the appointed Arbitrator at the given address :

¶28

H. No.1193, Sector 43B, Chandigarh. Phone Nos. 87259-41955, 98882-11658

¶29

The petition is accordingly disposed of in the above mentioned terms.

¶30

13.10.2023 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No

¶31

Pankaj Kakkar 2023.10.13 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

M/S Mohit Construction Company v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Mohit Construction Company v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Others

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

M/S H.S. Tuli & Sons Builders (P)Ltd Vs Union of India

M/S Haryana Ex-Services League Vs Haryana State Warehousing Corporation

Gobind Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Pargat Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rishab Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Others

Amrik Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others