Jitender Kumar Govt. Contractors And Engineers vs. Union Of INDIA Through Executive Engineer Central Public Works Department Construction Division

Facts

The petitioner, Jitender Kumar Govt. Contractors & Engineers, filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator. The petitioner was awarded a contract on July 11, 2022, for renovation and furnishing of the DG GST Intelligence office at MTNL Building, Dwarka, New Delhi. The petitioner claims the work commenced on May 17, 2022, but the contract was illegally foreclosed. The petitioner's request for payment release to the Executive Engineer received no response. Subsequently, the petitioner invoked arbitration clause 25 by approaching the Superintending Engineer and the Additional Director General on July 28, 2023. The respondent, Union of India through Executive Engineer, CPWD, suggested names and appointed an arbitrator. The Court noted a correction in the project name from IIT Mandi to DG GST Intelligence office.

Held

The Court held that it was appropriate to appoint an independent arbitrator in accordance with the qualifications stated in clauses (a), (b), and (c) of Clause 25.2 of the GCC. The Court noted that the arbitration was invoked on January 4, 2024, and the respondent had suggested names and appointed an arbitrator. However, the Court found it necessary to appoint an independent arbitrator. Accordingly, Mr. Kavindra Kumar Gill, Advocate, was appointed as the Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The arbitral proceedings will take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), and the arbitrator's fee will be paid as per the 4th Schedule as amended by DIAC Rules, 2023. The petition was disposed of with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should appoint an independent arbitrator in terms of Clause 25.2 of the GCC, given the disputes arising from the alleged illegal foreclosure of the contract and non-response to payment requests. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondent failed to respond to their payment requests and subsequently appointed an arbitrator, necessitating the Court's intervention to appoint an independent arbitrator as per the contract's arbitration clause. The petitioner relied on the arbitration clause 25 of the GCC. Respondent's Contention: The respondent suggested five names of engineers and proceeded to appoint Mr. Santosh Kumar. The respondent's counsel provided a copy of their reply, which was not on record. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondent regarding the appointment of an independent arbitrator, other than their initial suggestion and appointment.