Mr. P. S. Sridhar Raj, Mr. Abhishek Pandey and Ms. Sharmila Linka, Advs v. IIT DELHI THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, IIT DELHI, HAUZ KHAS, NEW DELHI
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Cited in this judgment
Through: Mr. Arjun Mitra, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) by the petitioner, seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes that have arisen between the parties. 2. The facts of the case would indicate that the petitioner was awarded Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:04.09.2025 17:53:11 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV the work of ‘repair and maintenance of Ultra Microhydral Lab-CRDT in Micro model including providing and fixing of new steels shed in Academic area at IIT Delhi’ in terms of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated
19.06.2023 bearing NIT no. 04/IITD/NIT/EE/(CD-IV)/2023-24. 3. As per the case set up by the petitioner, after inspection of the site, it became aware that the estimated cost of the work was highly undervalued in the tender. The petitioner claims to have requested the respondent to issue the Structural Design Plan along with a revised estimation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there was a delay on the part of the respondent in issuing the necessary documents for continuation of the work, and the petitioner had to suffer loss of profits as well as losses on account of idle labour. It is also stated that the respondent also failed to release payment on the first running bill submitted by the petitioner despite several reminders. 5. The petitioner, therefore, has invoked arbitration Clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC). 6. On notice being issued, Mr. Arjun Mitra, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent and contends that as per his instructions, the arbitration agreement applicable in the present dispute is contained in General Conditions of Contract, 2020 for maintenance work issued by CPWD. He submits that the arbitration clauses in the said document are slightly different from the clause being relied on herein, and that the clause which has been relied on by the petitioner is not applicable. 7. He, further, contends that even if clause 25 of the GCC which has been relied on by the petitioner is considered in right perspective, it would indicate that the competent authority for appointment of the arbitrator is the Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:04.09.2025 17:53:11 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV Director at the respondent-institution, and in case he does not do so, no arbitration can take place. 8. I have considered learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the record. 9. Clause 25 of the agreement which has been relied on by the petitioner, is extracted as under: ―Settlement of disputes & Arbitration Except where otherwise provided in the contract all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, design, drawings and instructions herein before mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the contract, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions orders or these conditions or otherwise concerning the works or the ex!3cution or failure to execute the same whether arising during the progress of the work or after the cancellation, termination, completion or .abandonment thereof shall be dealt with as mentioned hereinafter:- (i) lf the contractor considers any work demanded of him to be outside the requirements of the contract, or disputes any drawings, record or decision given in writing by the Engineer-in-Charge on any matter in connection with or arising out of the contract or carrying out of the work, to be unacceptable, he shall promptly within 15 days request the Institute Engineer in writing for written instruction or decision. Thereupon, the Institute Engineer shall give his written instructions or decision within a period of one month from the receipt of the contractor’s letter. If the Institute Engineer fails to give his instructions or decision within a period of one month from the receipt of the contractor is dissatisfied with the instructions or decision of the Institute Engineer, the contractor may, within 15 days of the receipt of institute Engineer's decision, appeal to the Director IIT Delhi shall afford an opportunity to the contractor to be heard, if the latter so desires, and to offer evidence in support of his appeal. The Director IIT Delhi shall give his decision within 30 days of receipt of contractor's appeal. If the contractor is dis satisfied with this decision, the contractor shall within a period of 30 days from receipt of the decision, give notice to the Director IIT Delhi for appointment of arbitrator on prescribed failing which the said decision shall proforma as per Appendix XV, (x) be final binding and conclusive and not referable to adjudication by the arbitrator. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:04.09.2025 17:53:11 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV (ii) Except where the decision has become final, binding and conclusive in terms of Sub Para (i) above' disputes or difference shall be referred for adjudication through arbitration by a sole arbitrator appointed by the Director IIT Delhi, in charge of the works. If the arbitrator so appointed is unable or unwilling to act or resigns his appointment or vacates his office due to any reason whatsoever, another sole arbitrator shall be appointed in the manner aforesaid. Such person shall be entitled to proceed with the reference from the stage at which it was left by his predecessor. It is a term of this contract that the party invoking arbitration shall give a list of disputes with amounts claimed in respect of each such dispute along with the notice for appointment of arbitrator and giving reference to the rejection by the Director IIT Delhi of the appeal. It is also a term of this contract .that no person, other than a person appointed by such Director IIT Delhi as aforesaid, should act as arbitrator and if for any reason that is not possible, the matter shall not be referred to arbitration at all. It is also a term of this contract that if the contractor does not make any demand for appointment of arbitrator in respect of any-claims in writing as aforesaid within 120 days of receiving the intimation from the Engineer-in- Charge that the final bill is ready for payment, the claim of the contractor shall be deemed to have been waived and absolutely barred and the IIT Delhi shall be discharged and released of all liabilities under the contract in respect of these claims. The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) or any statutory modifications or re-enactment thereof and the rules made there under and for the time being in force shall apply to the arbitration proceeding under this clause. It is also a term of this contract that the arbitrator shall adjudicate on only such disputes as are referred to him by the appointing authority and give separate award against each dispute and claim referred to him and in all cases where the total amount of the claims by any party exceeds Rs. 1,00,000/-, the arbitrator shall give reasons for the award. It is also a term of the contract that if any fees are payable to the arbitrator, these shall be paid equally by both the parties. It is also a term of the Contract that the arbitrator shall be deemed to have entered on the reference on the date he issues notice to both the parties Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:04.09.2025 17:53:11 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV calling them to submit their statement of claims and counter statement of claims. The venue of the arbitration shall be such place as may be fixed by the arbitrator in his sole discretion. The fees, if any, of the arbitrator shall, if required to be paid before the award is made and published, be paid half and half by each of the parties. The cost of the reference and of the award (including the fees, if any, of the arbitrator) shall be in the discretion of the arbitrator who may direct to any be whom and in what manner, such costs or any part thereof shall be paid and fix or settle the amount of costs to be so paid.‖
10. A bare reading of the said clause would indicate that disputes relating to claims, etc., are amenable to be adjudicated by the arbitrator. 11. Moreover, the clause on which Mr. Mitra places reliance, being clause
25.2 of the General Conditions of Contract, 2020 also envisages arbitration mechanism for resolution of disputes. 12. So far as the contentions of Mr. Mitra with respect to appointment of the arbitrator by the Director is concerned, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Ltd,1 there cannot be any appointment of the arbitrator by the Director. Paragraph no. 21 of the said decision is extracted below, for reference: ―21. But, in our view that has to be the logical deduction from TRF Limited.2 Paragraph 50 of the decision shows that this Court was concerned with the issue, ―whether the Managing Director, after becoming ineligible by operation of law, is he still eligible to nominate an Arbitrator‖ The ineligibility referred to therein, was as a result of operation of law, in that a person having an interest in the dispute or in the outcome or decision thereof, must not only be ineligible to act as an arbitrator but must also not be eligible to appoint anyone else as an arbitrator and that such person cannot and should not have any role in charting out any course to the dispute resolution by having the power to appoint an arbitrator. The next sentences in the paragraph, further show that cases where both the parties could nominate respective arbitrators of their choice were found to be completely a different
Through: Mr. Arjun Mitra, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) by the petitioner, seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes that have arisen between the parties. 2. The facts of the case would indicate that the petitioner was awarded Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:04.09.2025 17:53:11 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV the work of ‘repair and maintenance of Ultra Microhydral Lab-CRDT in Micro model including providing and fixing of new steels shed in Academic area at IIT Delhi’ in terms of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated
19.06.2023 bearing NIT no. 04/IITD/NIT/EE/(CD-IV)/2023-24. 3. As per the case set up by the petitioner, after inspection of the site, it became aware that the estimated cost of the work was highly undervalued in the tender. The petitioner claims to have requested the respondent to issue the Structural Design Plan along with a revised estimation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there was a delay on the part of the respondent in issuing the necessary documents for continuation of the work, and the petitioner had to suffer loss of profits as well as losses on account of idle labour. It is also stated that the respondent also failed to release payment on the first running bill submitted by the petitioner despite several reminders. 5. The petitioner, therefore, has invoked arbitration Clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC). 6. On notice being issued, Mr. Arjun Mitra, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent and contends that as per his instructions, the arbitration agreement applicable in the present dispute is contained in General Conditions of Contract, 2020 for maintenance work issued by CPWD. He submits that the arbitration clauses in the said document are slightly different from the clause being relied on herein, and that the clause which has been relied on by the petitioner is not applicable. 7. He, further, contends that even if clause 25 of the GCC which has been relied on by the petitioner is considered in right perspective, it would indicate that the competent authority for appointment of the arbitrator is the Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:04.09.2025 17:53:11 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV Director at the respondent-institution, and in case he does not do so, no arbitration can take place. 8. I have considered learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the record. 9. Clause 25 of the agreement which has been relied on by the petitioner, is extracted as under: ―Settlement of disputes & Arbitration Except where otherwise provided in the contract all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, design, drawings and instructions herein before mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the contract, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions orders or these conditions or otherwise concerning the works or the ex!3cution or failure to execute the same whether arising during the progress of the work or after the cancellation, termination, completion or .abandonment thereof shall be dealt with as mentioned hereinafter:- (i) lf the contractor considers any work demanded of him to be outside the requirements of the contract, or disputes any drawings, record or decision given in writing by the Engineer-in-Charge on any matter in connection with or arising out of the contract or carrying out of the work, to be unacceptable, he shall promptly within 15 days request the Institute Engineer in writing for written instruction or decision. Thereupon, the Institute Engineer shall give his written instructions or decision within a period of one month from the receipt of the contractor’s letter. If the Institute Engineer fails to give his instructions or decision within a period of one month from the receipt of the contractor is dissatisfied with the instructions or decision of the Institute Engineer, the contractor may, within 15 days of the receipt of institute Engineer's decision, appeal to the Director IIT Delhi shall afford an opportunity to the contractor to be heard, if the latter so desires, and to offer evidence in support of his appeal. The Director IIT Delhi shall give his decision within 30 days of receipt of contractor's appeal. If the contractor is dis satisfied with this decision, the contractor shall within a period of 30 days from receipt of the decision, give notice to the Director IIT Delhi for appointment of arbitrator on prescribed failing which the said decision shall proforma as per Appendix XV, (x) be final binding and conclusive and not referable to adjudication by the arbitrator. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:04.09.2025 17:53:11 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV (ii) Except where the decision has become final, binding and conclusive in terms of Sub Para (i) above' disputes or difference shall be referred for adjudication through arbitration by a sole arbitrator appointed by the Director IIT Delhi, in charge of the works. If the arbitrator so appointed is unable or unwilling to act or resigns his appointment or vacates his office due to any reason whatsoever, another sole arbitrator shall be appointed in the manner aforesaid. Such person shall be entitled to proceed with the reference from the stage at which it was left by his predecessor. It is a term of this contract that the party invoking arbitration shall give a list of disputes with amounts claimed in respect of each such dispute along with the notice for appointment of arbitrator and giving reference to the rejection by the Director IIT Delhi of the appeal. It is also a term of this contract .that no person, other than a person appointed by such Director IIT Delhi as aforesaid, should act as arbitrator and if for any reason that is not possible, the matter shall not be referred to arbitration at all. It is also a term of this contract that if the contractor does not make any demand for appointment of arbitrator in respect of any-claims in writing as aforesaid within 120 days of receiving the intimation from the Engineer-in- Charge that the final bill is ready for payment, the claim of the contractor shall be deemed to have been waived and absolutely barred and the IIT Delhi shall be discharged and released of all liabilities under the contract in respect of these claims. The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) or any statutory modifications or re-enactment thereof and the rules made there under and for the time being in force shall apply to the arbitration proceeding under this clause. It is also a term of this contract that the arbitrator shall adjudicate on only such disputes as are referred to him by the appointing authority and give separate award against each dispute and claim referred to him and in all cases where the total amount of the claims by any party exceeds Rs. 1,00,000/-, the arbitrator shall give reasons for the award. It is also a term of the contract that if any fees are payable to the arbitrator, these shall be paid equally by both the parties. It is also a term of the Contract that the arbitrator shall be deemed to have entered on the reference on the date he issues notice to both the parties Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:04.09.2025 17:53:11 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV calling them to submit their statement of claims and counter statement of claims. The venue of the arbitration shall be such place as may be fixed by the arbitrator in his sole discretion. The fees, if any, of the arbitrator shall, if required to be paid before the award is made and published, be paid half and half by each of the parties. The cost of the reference and of the award (including the fees, if any, of the arbitrator) shall be in the discretion of the arbitrator who may direct to any be whom and in what manner, such costs or any part thereof shall be paid and fix or settle the amount of costs to be so paid.‖
10. A bare reading of the said clause would indicate that disputes relating to claims, etc., are amenable to be adjudicated by the arbitrator. 11. Moreover, the clause on which Mr. Mitra places reliance, being clause
25.2 of the General Conditions of Contract, 2020 also envisages arbitration mechanism for resolution of disputes. 12. So far as the contentions of Mr. Mitra with respect to appointment of the arbitrator by the Director is concerned, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Ltd,1 there cannot be any appointment of the arbitrator by the Director. Paragraph no. 21 of the said decision is extracted below, for reference: ―21. But, in our view that has to be the logical deduction from TRF Limited.2 Paragraph 50 of the decision shows that this Court was concerned with the issue, ―whether the Managing Director, after becoming ineligible by operation of law, is he still eligible to nominate an Arbitrator‖ The ineligibility referred to therein, was as a result of operation of law, in that a person having an interest in the dispute or in the outcome or decision thereof, must not only be ineligible to act as an arbitrator but must also not be eligible to appoint anyone else as an arbitrator and that such person cannot and should not have any role in charting out any course to the dispute resolution by having the power to appoint an arbitrator. The next sentences in the paragraph, further show that cases where both the parties could nominate respective arbitrators of their choice were found to be completely a different