Allowed

M/S Apr Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Secretary J D a and Another

Rajasthan HC5 Dec 2014ARBAP/10/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application sought arbitrator appointment under Section 11 after respondents failed to refer a dispute per the agreement's mandatory procedure. The Court held that the applicant properly invoked the provision and appointed a retired Justice as arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Bhagwati (Retd.) as the arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties.

M/S Apr Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Secretary J D a and Another — Arbitration | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

SB CI VI L ARBI TRATI ON APPLI CATI ON NO. 10/ 13. 1

¶2

I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAI PUR

¶3

SB CI VI L ARBI TRATI ON APPLI CATI ON NO. 10/ 13.

¶4

M/ S. APR PROJECTS PVT. LTD. – APPLI CANT. VS THE SECRETARY, JAI PUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORI TY & ANR. – NON- APPLI CANTS.

¶5

DATE OF ORDER : 5TH DECEMBER, 2014.

¶6

PRESENT HON' BLE MS. JUSTI CE BELA M. TRI VEDI

¶7

Mr . Sameer Jai n f or t he appl i cant . Mr . Mahendr a Goyal f or t he non- appl i cant s.

¶8

ORDER

¶9

BY THE COURT :

¶10

The i nst ant appl i cat i on has been f i l ed by t he appl i cant seeki ng appoi nt ment of ar bi t r at or / ar bi t r al t r i bunal under Sect i on 11 of t he Ar bi t r at i on & Conci l i at i on Act , 1996 ( her ei naf t er r ef er r ed t o as ' t he sai d Act ' ) , on t he gr ound t hat t he r espondent s had f ai l ed t o r ef er t he di sput es t o an i ndependent ar bi t r at or .

¶11

I n t he i nst ant case i t appear s t hat pur suant t o t he agr eement execut ed bet ween t he par t i es, t he pet i t i oner was awar ded t he wor k Package- I I , f or r el ocat i on of 14 sl ums on 3 r el ocat i on si t es at Jai si nghpur a Khor on Del hi Road, JDA, Jai pur as per Wor k Or der No. F8( ) / JDA/ EE/ PDC- I I / 2010- 11/ D- 31 dat ed 17. 2. 11. On cer t ai n di sput es havi ng ar i sen bet ween t he par t i es, t he appl i cant t hr ough i t s advocat e hadsubmi t t ed an appl i cat i on

¶12

SB CI VI L ARBI TRATI ON APPLI CATI ON NO. 10/ 13. 2

¶13

dat ed 17. 12. 12 t o t he Secr et ar y, JDA, i n t he pr escr i bed f or m r equest i ng hi m t o r ef er t he di sput es t o t he per sons ot her t han t he per sons r ef er r ed i n Cl ause 23 of t he agr eement i n quest i on. The appl i cant had al so submi t t ed t he cheque of Rs. 1, 00, 000/ - t owar ds t he pr escr i bed f ees. The nonappl i cant t her eaf t er di d not r ef er t he sai d di sput e t o t he St andi ng Commi t t ee or any ot her commi t t ee and hence t he pr esent

¶14

appl i cat i on has been f i l ed by t he appl i cant f or t he appoi nt ment of an i ndependent ar bi t r at or under Sect i on 11 of t he sai d Act . The appl i cat i on has been r esi st ed by t he r espondent s by f i l i ng t he r epl y cont endi ng i nt er al i a t hat t he appl i cant had not compl i ed wi t h t he r equi r ement of Cl ause 23 of t he agr eement and hence, t he appl i cant was not ent i t l ed t o t he appoi nt ment of t he ar bi t r at or under Sect i on 11 of t he sai d Act .

¶15

I t has been submi t t ed by t he l ear ned counsel

¶16

Mr . Sameer Jai n f or t he appl i cant t hat t hough t he appl i cant had cal l ed upon t he r espondent s t o appoi nt an i ndependent ar bi t r at or i n vi ew of Cl ause 23 of t he agr eement i n quest i on, t he r espondent s nei t her r ef er r ed t he di sput es nor r epl i ed t o t he appl i cat i on of t he appl i cant . He f ur t her submi t t ed t hat t o show hi s bonaf i des, t he appl i cant had al so

¶17

SB CI VI L ARBI TRATI ON APPLI CATI ON NO. 10/ 13. 3

¶18

submi t t ed t he cheque of Rs. 1 l ac al ongwi t h hi s appl i cat i on i n t he pr escr i bed f or m as cont empl at ed under Cl ause 23 of t he sai d agr eement and hence had compl i ed wi t h al l t he f or mal i t i es. Accor di ng t o hi m, t he appl i cant had r equest ed t he r espondent s t o appoi nt an i ndependent ar bi t r at or as aut hor i t i es above t he member s of t he st andi ng commi t t ee r ef er r ed i n Cl ause 23 had t aken t he deci si on agai nst t he appl i cant .

¶19

Per cont r a, t he l ear ned counsel Mr . Mahendr a goyal f or t he non- appl i cant s submi t t ed t hat t he appl i cat i on gi ven by t he appl i cant bei ng not i n consonance wi t h Cl ause 23 of t he agr eement , i t coul d not be sai d t hat t he appl i cant had gi ven pr oper not i ce t o t he r espondent s bef or e pr esent i ng t he i nst ant appl i cat i on under Sect i on 11 of t he sai d Act .

¶20

I n t he i nst ant case i t i s not di sput ed t hat t he par t i es had agr eed t o r ef er t hei r f ut ur e di sput es t o t he Empower ed St andi ng Commi t t ee of JDA as per Cl ause 23 of t he agr eement i n quest i on. I t i s al so not di sput ed t hat t he appl i cant had cal l ed upon t he non- appl i cant s t o r ef er t he di sput es t o t he per sons ot her t han t he member s of t he St andi ng Commi t t ee, al ongwi t h t he cheque of Rs. 1 l ac i n vi ew of sai d Cl ause 23. I t i s al so not di sput ed t hat t he non- appl i cant s had nei t her r ef er r ed t he

¶21

SB CI VI L ARBI TRATI ON APPLI CATI ON NO. 10/ 13. 4

¶22

sai d di sput es t o t he Empower ed St andi ng Commi t t ee nor had appoi nt ed any ot her ar bi t r at or . The onl y cont ent i on r ai sed by t he l ear ned counsel f or t he non- appl i cant s was t hat t he appl i cat i on of t he appl i cant was not i n consonance wi t h Cl ause 23 of t he agr eement , as t he appl i cant had r equest ed t o r ef er t he di sput es t o t he per sons ot her t han t he Empower ed St andi ng Commi t t ee. The cour t does not f i nd any f or ce i n t he sai d submi ssi on. The appl i cant whi l e maki ng appl i cat i on i n t he pr escr i bed f or m had speci f i cal l y st at ed t hat t he deci si ons t o encash t he bank guar ant ee of t he appl i cant et c. wer e t aken by t he aut hor i t i es above t he member s of t he Empower ed St andi ng Commi t t ee, and t her ef or e t he di sput es wer e r equi r ed t o be r ef er r ed t o t he per sons ot her t han t he per sons r ef er r ed i n Cl ause 23 of t he agr eement . When t he appl i cant had submi t t ed t he appl i cat i on i n t he pr escr i bed f or m al ongwi t h t he cheque t owar ds pr escr i bed f ees, i t coul d not be sai d t hat t he appl i cant had not compl i ed wi t h Cl ause 23 of t he agr eement , mer el y because t he appl i cant had expr essed i t s genui ne appr ehensi on and r equest ed t o appoi nt i ndependent per sons i n pl ace of t he per sons r ef er r ed i n Cl ause 23 of t he agr eement .

¶23

SB CI VI L ARBI TRATI ON APPLI CATI ON NO. 10/ 13. 5

¶24

I t cannot be gai nsai d t hat i f t he par t i es had agr eed t o f ol l ow a par t i cul ar pr ocedur e f or appoi nt i ng t he ar bi t r at or , t hen t he ar bi t r at or has t o be appoi nt ed as per t he sai d pr ocedur e onl y and i n such a si t uat i on, t he cour t cannot appoi nt t he ar bi t r at or , unl ess t he var i ous cont i ngenci es pr ovi ded i n sub- sect i on 6 of Sect i on 11 have ar i sen. I f t he par t y who was obl i ged t o appoi nt t he ar bi t r at or as per t he agr eed pr ocedur e f ai l s

¶25

t o do so t hough cal l ed upon by t he ot her par t y, t hen t he par t y f ai l i ng t o appoi nt f or f ei t s i t s r i ght , i f t he ot her par t y appr oaches t he cour t af t er t he pr escr i bed per i od of t hi r t y days, and i n t hat case, t he cour t i s r equi r ed t o appoi nt t he ar bi t r at or under Sect i on 11( 6) of t he sai d Act . A benef i ci al r ef er ence of t he deci si ons of t he Apex Cour t i n t he case of Dat ar Swi t chgear s Lt d. Vs. Tat a Fi nance Lt d. ( 2000) 8 SCC, 151 and i n t he case of M/ s. Deep Tr adi ng Company Vs. M/ s. I ndi an Oi l Cor por at i on & Or s. 2013 ( 2) R. A. J. 433 ( SC) , be made i n t hi s r egar d.

¶26

I n t he i nst ant case, t he r espondent s havi ng f ai l ed t o r ef er t he di sput es i n vi ew of Cl ause 23 of t he agr eement i n quest i on, t hough r equest ed by t he appl i cant , t he appl i cant was j ust i f i ed i n appr oachi ng t he cour t f or t he appoi nt ment of t he ar bi t r at or

¶27

SB CI VI L ARBI TRATI ON APPLI CATI ON NO. 10/ 13. 6

¶28

under Sect i on 11( 6) of t he sai d Act .

¶29

I n t hat vi ew of t he mat t er t he pr esent appl i cat i on deser ves t o be al l owed and i s al l owed accor di ngl y, Hon' bl e Mr . Just i ce Mahesh Bhagwat i ( Ret d. ) , R/ o L- 44, Sukh Shant i , I ncome Tax Col ony, Dur gapur a, Jai pur i s her eby appoi nt ed as t he ar bi t r at or t o r esol ve t he di sput es bet ween t he par t i es. The cost of ar bi t r at i on pr oceedi ngs and t he ar bi t r at i on f ees shal l be as per t he Raj ast han Hi gh Cour t Ar bi t r at i on Manual . A copy of t hi s or der be sent t o Hon' bl e Mr . Just i ce Mahesh Bhagwat i ( Ret d. ) .

¶30

( BELA M. TRI VEDI ) J.

¶31

¶32

Al l cor r ect i ons made i n t he j udgment / or der have been i ncor por at ed i n t he j udgment / or der bei ng emai l ed. MRG/ PS

M/S Apr Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Secretary J D a and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Apr Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Secretary J D a and Another

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

Nitin Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Satya Narayan Vs U O I and Anr.

Anil Kumar Bashistha Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Asheesh Sharma and Ors. Vs State Medical and Healthors

Devi Lal Vs State Medical and Healthors

M/S Jay Bhawani Construction Company Vs J D a through Commissioner