Jones Lang Lasalle Property Consultants INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. Rajasthan Urban Drinking Water Sewerage And Infrastructure Corporation Limited

Facts

The petitioner, Jones Lang LaSalle Property Consultants India Pvt. Ltd., filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator. The dispute arose from a contract awarded to the petitioner by the respondent, Rajasthan Urban Drinking Water, Sewerage and Infrastructure Corporation Limited, following a Request for Proposal (RFP) issued on February 15, 2017. The contract, executed on July 19, 2017, was for consultancy services related to advertisement tax revenue improvement in AMRUT cities in Rajasthan. The petitioner was to receive Rs. 72,90,000/- plus GST. Disputes emerged regarding the petitioner's monetary entitlements. The petitioner invoked arbitration on July 29, 2021, nominating its arbitrator. The respondent acknowledged the invocation on September 9, 2021, stating the appointment was in process, but failed to appoint an arbitrator within 30 days. The petitioner then approached the Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA), which did not act due to the respondent's belated appointment of its nominee. Consequently, the petitioner filed the present petition.

Held

The Court held that an independent sole arbitrator should be appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. This decision was reached by agreement of the counsel for both parties. The Court appointed Mr. Jayant Kumar, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator. The parties are at liberty to raise their respective claims and counter-claims before the arbitrator. The respondent is permitted to raise jurisdictional or preliminary objections, which the arbitrator must consider and decide in accordance with the law. While the seat of arbitration is Delhi, the venue can be Jaipur if requested by a party. The arbitrator is required to furnish disclosures under Section 12 of the A&C Act and will be entitled to fees as per the IVth Schedule to the Act or as agreed. The parties will share the arbitrator's fee and costs equally. The Court explicitly stated that its order does not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court has the power to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, given the dispute resolution clauses in the contract and the respondent's failure to appoint an arbitrator within the stipulated time frame? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the respondent failed to appoint its arbitrator within the 30-day period stipulated in Clause 45.1(c) of the Special Conditions of Contract (SCC) after the petitioner invoked arbitration and nominated its arbitrator. This failure, the petitioner argued, empowered it to approach the Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA) for the appointment of a sole arbitrator, and subsequently, this Court under Section 11(6) of the Act when the ICA did not act. The petitioner relied on the arbitration agreement as contained in the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) and SCC. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent did not present any arguments against the appointment of an arbitrator. The judgment notes that after some hearing, counsel for both parties agreed on the appointment of an independent sole arbitrator.