Ms Vyom Ganga Engineers And Consultan PVT LTD vs. Ms Planning And Infrastructual Development Consultant PVT LTD

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s Vyom Ganga Engineers and Consultant Pvt Ltd, entered into a Sub Consultancy Agreement dated 04.10.2019 with the Respondent, M/s Planning and Infrastructural Development Consultants Pvt Ltd. The Petitioner raised bills to the Respondent, who in turn billed the Project Client. The Project Client released the invoice amounts, but the Respondent withheld the bill amount, including the GST component, due to the Petitioner. The Petitioner issued a notice demanding the release of the withheld amount with interest. As disputes arose and the Respondent did not agree to the Petitioner's suggested arbitrators, the Petitioner filed petitions under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator.

Held

The Court held that an Arbitrator should be appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The Court noted that the Petitioner had invoked arbitration due to the Respondent withholding bill amounts, including GST, and that the parties were unable to agree on an arbitrator. Consequently, the Court exercised its power under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court appointed Mr. Nikhil Palli, Adv., as the Sole Arbitrator. The arbitration proceedings will be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and will abide by its rules. The Arbitrator is entitled to fees as per DIAC's schedule and must file a disclosure under Section 12(2) of the Act. All rights and contentions of the parties regarding claims and counter-claims are kept open for the Arbitrator to decide on merits. The Court explicitly stated that its order does not express any opinion on the merits of the parties' contentions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the Petitioner and the Respondent, as per Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that a dispute existed due to the Respondent withholding bill amounts, including GST, despite receiving payment from the Project Client. The Petitioner invoked arbitration as per the agreement, but the Respondent failed to agree on an arbitrator, necessitating the Court's intervention under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Respondent's Contention: The Respondent did not record any specific arguments against the appointment of an arbitrator. During the hearing, the counsel for both parties jointly requested the appointment of an independent Sole Arbitrator.