Allowed

M/S Chhagni Ram Gehlot v. Jodhpur Development Authority

Rajasthan HC18 Aug 2023ARBAP/22/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Relying on a prior order upheld by the Apex Court, the Court appointed a retired judge as the sole arbitrator to resolve a dispute between the petitioner firm and the Jodhpur Development Authority.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deo Narayan Thanvi (Retd.) as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

M/S Chhagni Ram Gehlot Vs Jodhpur Development Authority — Arbitration | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[ARBAP-22/2020]

¶2

(1 of 6)

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Arbitration Application No. 22/2020

¶5

M/s Chhagni Ram Gehlot, Through Its Proprietor Shri Chhagni Ram Gehlot S/o Shri Achalu Ram Gehlot, Aged About 70 Years, R/o 327-Dilip Nagar, Lal Sagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Jodhpur Development Authority, Through Secretary, Jda, Jodhpur Development Authority Campus, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶9

The Executive Engineer North (Zone) Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ankur Mathur
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Rajat Dave with Ms. Aavya Gupta

¶12

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶13

Order

¶14

18/08/2023

¶15

The instant arbitration application has been preferred by the applicant-Firm under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1996’ ), claiming the following reliefs:-

¶16

“A- That it is humbly prayed that the instant application may be allowed with costs and an independent arbitrator may kindly be appointed while exercising powers under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with scheme of appointment of arbitrators.

¶17

B- Any other further relief as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be along granted in favour of the applicant.”

¶18

[ARBAP-22/2020]

¶19

(2 of 6)

¶20

The respondent-JDA issued a tender for construction of Road and Nala from Bhadwasiya Railway Crossing Via Mata Ka Than, Jodhpur and the applicant, who participated in the tender process, was declared as a successful bidder, whereafter, agreement (No. F-38 (6)/2011-12) was executed between the parties and a work order was issued on 16.06.2011 in favour of the applicant-Firm. Thereafter, the work in question commenced, but the same was completed with delay.

¶21

2.1 Thereafter, the applicant sent a notice to the respondent, whereby a demand was made for making due payments towards the work so completed; it was also claimed inter alia that either an arbitrator may be appointed or else the matter may be referred to the Standing Committee, as per clause 23 of the agreement in question. The said Clause 23 is reproduced as hereunder:-

¶22

“ Clause 23: Standing Committee for Settlement of Disputes if any question, difference or objection, whatsoever shall arise in any way, in connection with or arising out of this instrument, or the meaning of operation of any part thereof, or the rights, duties or liabilities of either party then, same in so far, as the decision of any such matter, as herein before provided for, and been so decided, every such matter constituting a total claim of Rs. 50,0001 or above, whether its decision has been otherwise provided for and whether it has been finally decided accordingly, or whether the Contract should be terminated or has been rightly terminated, and as regards the rights or obligations of the parties, as the result of such termination, shall be referred for decision to the empowered Standing Committee, which would consist of the followings:

¶23

(i) Administrative Secretary concerned.

¶24

(ii) Finance Secretary or his nominee, not below the rank of Deputy Secretary and/or Chief Accounts Officer.

¶25

(iii) Law Secretary or his nominee, not below the rank of Joint Legal Remembrance.

¶26

(3 of 6)

¶27

[ARBAP-22/2020]

¶28

(iv) Chief Engineer cum Add. Secretary of the concerned department.

¶29

(v) JDA concerned (Member Secretary)

¶30

The Engineer in charge, on receipt of application along with non refundable prescribed fee (the fee would be two percent of the amount in dispute, not exceeding Rs. One Lac) from the date of receipt of application

¶31

Procedure and Application for referring cases for settlement by the Standing Committee shall be, as given in Form RPWA 90.”

¶32

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the claim of the applicant was not duly considered by the respondent, and that, since the parties are bound by the aforementioned arbitration clause, therefore, it is necessary that the matter may be referred for arbitration, while appointing an independent and impartial arbitration for resolution of the dispute between the parties.

¶33

3.1. Learned counsel further submits that another dispute pertaining to another agreement between the applicant and the respondent, wherein the same arbitration clause, as above, was existing, the applicant approached this Hon’ble Court by preferring S.B. Arbitration Application No.146/2011, whereupon this Hon’ble Court vide order 21.02.2014 allowed the said application and referred the dispute for arbitration.

¶34

3.1.1. The aforementioned order dated 21.04.2014 was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal No. 16281/2014, but the same was dismissed vide order 12.07.2016.

¶35

[ARBAP-22/2020]

¶36

(4 of 6)

¶37

3.2. Learned counsel thus seeks appointment of an arbitrator by this Court while invoking Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶38

On other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made on behalf of the applicant and submits that the applicant is relying on clause 23 of the agreement in question as arbitration clause, but the said clause cannot be construed as an arbitration clause; it is only for referring the dispute, if any, to the Standing Committee.

¶39

4.1. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of P. Dasaratharama Reddy Complex Vs. Government of karnantaka & Anr (2014) 2 SCC 201; Kunhayammed & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. (2000) 6 SCC 359; Khoday Distilleries Ltd. Vs. Sri Mahadeshwar Sahakara Sakkare Karnataka Ltd. (2019) 4 SCC 376. and P. Singaravelan & Anr Vs. District Collector (2020) 3 SCC 133.

¶40

4.2. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of M/s Suri Construction Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors. (D.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 796/2019, decided on 20.02.2020) and the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench in case of Singhal Construction Company Vs Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board (S.B. Arbitration Application No.3/2010 , decided on 07.10.2016). 4.3. It was also submitted that the aforementioned order, which was passed by this Hon’ble Court and thereafter upheld by the

¶41

[ARBAP-22/2020]

¶42

(5 of 6)

¶43

Hon’ble Apex Court, referred by the applicant, does not operate as a binding precedent. Thus, as per learned counsel, the present application deserves to be dismissed.

¶44

However, after making such submissions, learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that an independent and impartial arbitrator may be appointed as the sole Arbitrator in the present case to resolve the dispute between the parties.

¶45

Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 7. This Court observes that the earlier arbitration bearing S.B. Misc. Arbitration Application No.146/2011 preferred by the applicant before this Hon’ble Court, subject matter whereof was the same Clause, as involved herein, was allowed, and the said order, upon being challenged, was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

¶46

This Court however, observes that the limited issue in question falls within the ambit of Section 11 of the Act of 1996. 9. This Court is also conscious of the fact that any further issue(s) can be raised by either of the parties before the arbitrator, who in turn, shall deal with the same, strictly in accordance with law.

¶47

Accordingly, this Court finds that the agreement clause, relating to appointment of the Arbitrator, is required to be invoked and thus, the instant application, filed by the applicant, is allowed and while exercising the power conferred under Section 11 of the Act of 1996, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deo Narayan Thanvi (Retd.), R/o 7, Parwati Nagar, Circuit House Road, Jodhpur,

¶48

[ARBAP-22/2020]

¶49

(6 of 6)

¶50

Rajasthan , is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The payment of cost of arbitration proceedings and arbitration fee shall be made as per the 4th Schedule appended to the Act of 1996.

¶51

The intimation of appointment, as aforesaid, may be given by learned counsel for the parties as well as by the Registry to

¶52

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deo Narayan Thanvi . The above appointment is subject to necessary disclosure being made under Section 12 of the Act of 1996.

¶53

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶54

147-Sudheer

M/S Chhagni Ram Gehlot v. Jodhpur Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Chhagni Ram Gehlot v. Jodhpur Development Authority

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

Bhom Singh Vs State and Ors.

C.T.O. Special Circle, Udaipur Vs M/S Blueton Paper Products Ltd. Udaipur

Om Prakash Kalwa Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S G.S. Enterprises Vs Union of India

Bhagwati Electronics Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Yogesh Somani Vs Cmd