M/S Sushil Buildwell PVT LTD vs. Jamia Millia Islamia Through It Vice Chancellor & Anr.

Facts

M/s Sushil Buildwell Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a Work Order dated March 17, 2017. The arbitration clause is in Clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract. The Petitioner sent a legal notice for settlement of claims on February 6, 2024, and invoked arbitration on April 25, 2024. The Respondent, Jamia Millia Islamia, did not respond. The Petitioner's claims amount to approximately Rs. 2,97,50,406/- plus an 18.75% monthly compound interest and applicable GST. The Respondent was served notice but did not appear.

Held

The Court held that there is a valid and subsisting arbitration agreement between the parties, falling within the Court's territorial jurisdiction. The disputes, as presented, do not appear ex facie to be non-arbitrable. The Court noted the Respondent's non-appearance despite service of notice, a situation addressed by precedents where courts proceed ex-parte. Therefore, the petition was allowed. Ms. Fareha Ahmed Khan, Advocate, was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The arbitrator is to furnish a declaration under Section 12 of the A&C Act. All rights and contentions of the parties, including arbitrability and merits, are left open for the Sole Arbitrator's adjudication. The parties are directed to approach the Sole Arbitrator within two weeks. The petition was disposed of.

Key Issues

1. Whether a Sole Arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, given the Respondent's non-appearance and lack of response to the arbitration invocation notice? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner contended that a valid arbitration agreement exists and that the Respondent's failure to respond to the legal notice and arbitration invocation, despite being served, warrants the appointment of an arbitrator. They relied on Supreme Court judgments in Fugro Survey (India) (P) Ltd. v. Ramunia International Services Ltd. and Suprema Inc. v. 4G Identity Solutions (P) Ltd., and High Court judgments in Energy Efficient Services Ltd. v. Merry Gold Enterprises and Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. v. Anjali Nag, which allowed appointment of arbitrators in similar ex-parte situations. Respondent's Arguments: No arguments were recorded from the Respondent as they did not appear.