Allowed

M/S Abhyudhaya Construction Development Pvt. Ltd. v. the Chief Engineer (Nh and Ppp)

Rajasthan HC3 Feb 2023ARBAP/35/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court entertained an application by a construction company for appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner alleged non-payment of work executed for a government road project and sought to invoke the arbitration clause in the agreement. The respondent argued for prior dispute resolution through the Indian Road Congress. Th

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Bhagwati (Retd.) as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

M/S Abhyudhaya Construction Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs… — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/001589]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Arbitration Application No.35/2022

¶4

M/s Abhyudhaya Construction Development Pvt. Ltd., 5/1099, Viram Division, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh, through its Director, Shri Anil Rawther

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Chief Engineer (NH and PPP, P.W.D. Rajasthan, Jacob Road, Jaipur.

¶8

The Executive Engineer, PWD, Division, Balaji Road, Opposite Rajkiya Hospital, Todhabhim, District Karauli, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Nikhil Simlote, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.Pankaj Choudhary, Adv. for
	Mr.Rohit Choudhary, Dy. Govt.
	Counsel.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order

¶12

03/02/2023

¶13

The instant arbitration application has been filed by the applicant-petitioner for appointment of Sole Arbitrator under Section 11(6)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘the Act of 1996’).

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant-company is engaged in construction and development activities in the State of Rajasthan and other States and has been categorized as ‘AA’ class contractor for civil work.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents-non applicants had invited bids on the basis of the

[2023/RJJP/001589]

[ARBAP-35/2022]

(2 of 4)

National Competitive Bidding system on 30.04.2018 and the applicant was declared a successful bidder and awarded work order for strengthening and Divider Drain Road work on Daruheda (NH-8) to Gangapur via Bhiwadi-Tapookara-Tijara-KishangarhwasAlwar-Rajgarh-Bandikui-Sikandara (SH-25 KM 176/0 to 197/0 (Talchida Nadauti Section) District Karauli.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that after acceptance of bid, the applicant-company completed the work and as such, the payments which were demanded by the petitionercompany while executing the contract, was not released and in spite of several requests being made for payment of executed work, the respondents did not take any action to release the payment to the applicant-company.

¶21

Learned counsel submitted that under Section 3 (Conditions of Contract) of the bid document at part ‘F’ (Special Conditions of Contract), the Clause-3 provides the procedure for resolving the issue in case of a dispute through an Arbitrator.

¶22

Learned counsel submitted that the notice dated 11.01.2022 was sent to the respondents for invoking arbitration to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and name of Arbitrator was to be suggested by the applicant-company.

¶23

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents did not reply to the said notice and did not appoint any Arbitrator from there side, as per the procedure prescribed for settling the dispute by way of arbitration, as provided in the agreement.

(3 of 4)

[2023/RJJP/001589]

[ARBAP-35/2022]

Learned counsel submitted that the applicant in view of not receiving any response from the respondents has been left with no other option except to approach this Court.

¶28

Per contra, Learned counsel for the respondents Mr.Pankaj Choudhary submitted that the applicant-company has wrongly approached this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator.

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant-contractor did not complete work within stipulated time and there was also issue with regard to sub standard material used in the construction work.

¶30

Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has wrongly approached this Court without first raising the dispute before the Indian Road Congress for resolving the dispute and availing the provisions available under the terms of the agreement which has been executed between the parties.

¶31

This Court asked counsel for the respondents, as why, the action, which was required to be taken by them to appoint Arbitrator from there side, has not been followed.

¶32

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this Court may take into account the relevant clause for appointment of Arbitrator and can pass necessary order as per law.

¶33

This Court finds that the dispute between the applicantpetitioner and the non-petitioners is required to be decided by an Arbitrator to be appointed by this Court.

¶34

This Court, accordingly allows the present arbitration application filed by the applicant-petitioner and while exercising the power conferred under Section 11 of the Act of 1996, appoints Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Bhagwati (Retd.) L-44 Sukhshanti,

(4 of 4)

[2023/RJJP/001589]

[ARBAP-35/2022]

Income-Tax Colony Durgapura, Jaipur (94141-60666) as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the present dispute between the parties. The payment of cost of arbitration proceedings and arbitration fee shall be made as per the 4^th Schedule appended to the Act of 1996.

¶39

The intimation of appointment, as aforesaid, may be given by counsel for the parties as well as by the Registry to Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Bhagwati (Retd.) L-44 Sukhshanti, Income-Tax Colony Durgapura, Jaipur (94141-60666).

¶40

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J

¶41

Himanshu Soni/38

M/S Abhyudhaya Construction Development Pvt. Ltd. v. the Chief Engineer (Nh and Ppp)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Abhyudhaya Construction Development Pvt. Ltd. v. the Chief Engineer (Nh and Ppp)

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

Hariom Meena Son of Shri Ramprasad Vs State of Rajasthan through Secretary

Anil Kumar Bhardwaj Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Kaushalya Meena Vs State Women and Child Development Ors.

Anil Kumawat S/O Shri Rajeshwar Kumawat Vs the State of Rajasthan

M/S Monilek Hospital and Research Centre, Vs Dr. Sanjay Khandelwal Son of Shri Radha Mohan Gupta

R.G. Colonizers Private Limited Vs Sweets Buildhomes Projects