M/S Vyom Ganga Engineers And Consultant PVT LTD vs. M/S Planning And Infrastructural Development Consultants PVT LTD

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s Vyom Ganga Engineers and Consultant Pvt Ltd, filed petitions under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator. The dispute arose from a Sub Consultancy Agreement dated 04.10.2019 with the Respondent, M/s Planning and Infrastructural Development Consultants Pvt Ltd. The Petitioner raised bills, and the Respondent subsequently billed the Project Client. While the Project Client released the invoice amount, the Respondent allegedly withheld the bill amount, including the GST component, due to the Petitioner. The Petitioner issued a notice for the release of the withheld amount and interest. Following a dispute and the Respondent's failure to agree on arbitrators, the Petitioner approached the High Court.

Held

The Court held that it had the power to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as there was a dispute between the parties and the Respondent had not agreed to the appointment of an arbitrator suggested by the Petitioner. The Court noted that both parties jointly requested the appointment of an independent Sole Arbitrator. Accordingly, the Court appointed Mr. Nikhil Palli, Adv., as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate all disputes between the parties. The arbitration is to 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 has the power to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in light of the disputes arising from the Sub Consultancy Agreement dated 04.10.2019, particularly concerning the withholding of bill amounts and GST by the Respondent? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that a dispute existed due to the Respondent's withholding of payments, including GST, and that the Respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator as per the agreement, necessitating court intervention under Section 11(6). Respondent's Contention: The Respondent did not contest the appointment of an arbitrator. During the hearing, counsel for both parties jointly requested the appointment of an independent Sole Arbitrator.