Ms Gail INDIA Limited vs. Ms Nrp Projects Private Limited
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, GAIL India Limited, filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator. The dispute arose from a contract awarded to the respondent, NRP Projects Private Limited, for laying a pipeline. The original contract value was Rs. 19,68,24,000/- excluding GST, and the agreement was dated 14.02.2019. The petitioner invoked arbitration via a legal notice dated 04.05.2024. The respondent, in its reply, highlighted that another contract was entered into on 25.04.2021, and disputes also arose from this subsequent contract. The respondent suggested that it would be in the interest of justice to refer disputes from both contracts to a single Arbitrator.
Held
The Court held that an Arbitrator should be appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The Court found merit in the respondent's suggestion to include disputes arising from the subsequent contract dated 25.04.2021, as the petitioner had no objection. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and appointed Justice Rajiv Shakdher (Retd. Chief Justice of High Court of Himachal Pradesh) as the Sole Arbitrator. The arbitration proceedings will be conducted under the aegis and rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The remuneration of the Arbitrator will be as per DIAC Rules, 2018. The Arbitrator is required to furnish a declaration under Section 12 of the Act. Crucially, the Court clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties, including arbitrability, preliminary objections, claims, counter-claims, and the merits of the dispute, are left open for adjudication by the Arbitrator. The parties are directed to approach the Arbitrator within two weeks.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should appoint an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to adjudicate disputes arising from the contract dated 14.02.2019. The petitioner contended that disputes exist and sought the appointment of an Arbitrator as per Clause 59 of the SCC. The respondent agreed with the need for arbitration and further proposed that disputes from a subsequent contract dated 25.04.2021 should also be referred to the same Arbitrator. 2. Whether disputes arising from the subsequent contract dated 25.04.2021 should be clubbed with the disputes from the initial contract dated 14.02.2019 for adjudication by a single Arbitrator. The respondent argued that it would be in the interest of justice to do so, and the petitioner had no objection to this proposal.
Sections Cited
Section 11, Section 12
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 23.04.2025
This is a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
The petitioner had awarded the respondent a contract for laying of 24" NB dia x 1400 Meters API 5L X-80 / X-70 pipeline along with 6" NB dia [Wall Thickness (WT) 6.4 mm] CS conduit pipe for HDPE/OFC across Chandragiri River crossing and surrounding valley type area at both side of the river, through HDD method vide FOA dated 04.01.2019 with reference no. GAIL/NOIDA/C&P/PROJ/HDD/KKBMPL-II/HDD/18-005/109 with an estimated contract value of Rs. 19,68,24,000/- excluding GST.
The parties entered into an agreement dated 14.02.2019. 4. The agreement contained arbitration clause being Clause 59 of SCC which reads as under: 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 30/06/2025 at 23:45:51
“59.0 ARBITRATION
1 Clause No.107.0 of GCC pertaining to Arbitration shall be replaced by the following:- 59.1.1 All disputes, controversies, or claims between the parties (except in matters where the decision of the Engineer-in-Charge is deemed to be final and binding) which cannot be mutually resolved within a reasonable time shall be referred to Arbitration by sole arbitrator. 59.1.2 The Employer/Consultant (GAIL) shall suggest a panel of three independent and distinguished persons to the other party (Bidder/Contractor/ Supplier/Buyer as the case may be) to select any one among them to act as the sole Arbitrator. 59.1.3 In the event of failure of the other party to select the sole Arbitrator within 30 days from the receipt of the communication suggesting the panel of arbitrators, the right of selection of sole Arbitrator by the other party shall stand forfeited and the Employer/Consultant shall have discretion to proceed with the appointment of the sole Arbitrator. The decision of the Employer/Consultant on the appointment of Sole Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties. 59.1.4 The award of the Sole Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties and unless directed/awarded otherwise by the Sole Arbitrator, the cost of arbitration proceedings shall be shared equally by the Parties. The arbitration proceeding shall be in English language and the venue shall be at New Delhi, India. 59.1.5 Subject to the above, the provisions of (Indian) Arbitration & 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 30/06/2025 at 23:45:51
Conciliation Act, 1996 and the rules framed there under shall be applicable. 59.1.6 All matters relating to this contract are subject to the exclusive juri iction of the Courts situated in the State of Delhi (India). 59.1.7 Bidders/ Supplier/ Contractors may please note that the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 was enacted by the Indian Parliament and is based on United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL, model law), which were prepared after extensive consultation with Arbitral Institutions and centres of International Commercial Arbitration. The United Nations General Assembly vide resolution 31/98 adopted the UNCITRAL Arbitration rules on 15 December 1976.”
The petitioner thereafter invoked arbitration vide legal notice dated 04.05.2024. 6. Thereafter, the present petition has been filed.
Respondent has filed a reply, wherein the respondent states that pursuant to the agreement dated 14.02.2019, there was another contract dated 25.04.2021 entered into between the parties.
Learned counsel for the respondent states that there are disputes in the said contract also and hence it would be in the interest of justice that the disputes arising out of both the contracts are referred to an Arbitrator.
Mr. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to the same.
For the said reasons, the petition is allowed with the following conditions: 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 30/06/2025 at 23:45:51
i) Justice Rajiv Shakdher (Retd. Chief Justice of High Court of Himachal Pradesh) (Mob. No. 9717495004) is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. ii) The arbitration will be held under the aegis and rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘DIAC’). iii) The remuneration of the learned Arbitrator shall be in terms of DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators’ Fees) Rules, 2018. iv) The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration in terms of Section 12 of the Act prior to entering into the reference. v) It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the parties, including as to the arbitrability of any of the claim, any other preliminary objection, as well as claims/counter-claims and merits of the dispute of either of the parties, are left open for adjudication by the learned arbitrator. vi) The parties shall approach the learned Arbitrator within two weeks from today.
The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. JASMEET SINGH, J APRIL 23, 2025/DM Click here to check corrigendum, if any 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 30/06/2025 at 23:45:51
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.