Consequently, this Court proceeds to appoint Ms. Depika v. Conciliation Act
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Accordingly, it has been submitted that since the dispute arisen, the petitioner sought to refer the matter to an arbitrator by notice served on the respondent on 26.03.2021. However, there was no response from the authorities, and the petitioner was left with no option…
- Para 77. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is certain dispute relating to claim for payment of interest which would require to be adjudicated by the adjudicators forum, in the present case by way of arbitration. Accordingly, this Court is of…
Judgment
Through: Mr. Arjun Bhatia, Advocate Vs. J&K Power Development Corp ltd th. Chief Engineer BHEP Stage 2 Chanderkote Ramban and Anr. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
O R D E R 16.02.2024
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present application has been filed for appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute which has arisen between the parties on account of protection works against shootout of Rock Anchors in Power House Stage-I of BHEP vide allotment Order No. 20 of 2018 dated
21.06.2018 executed by the petitioner.
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has executed the work but has not been made the full payment. It has been submitted that there is an arbitration clause i.e., clause 21 in the work allotment which provides that if any dispute arises out of or in connection which the terms and conditions of this work or as to the interpretation thereof or as to conformity of the work with plan, specification and measurement etc. the same shall be settled by Arbitration Act of Jammu & Kashmir State under J&K jurisdiction.
Accordingly, it has been submitted that since the dispute arisen, the petitioner sought to refer the matter to an arbitrator by notice served on the respondent on 26.03.2021. However, there was no response from the authorities, and the petitioner was left with no option but to approach this court by filing this application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.
Mr. Amit Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent submits that though there is an arbitration agreement, there is no dispute as all payments have been made.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the same stating that the respondents have not made the payment of interest portion because of the delayed payment made.
Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is certain dispute relating to claim for payment of interest which would require to be adjudicated by the adjudicators forum, in the present case by way of arbitration. Accordingly, this Court is of the opnion that a case has been made out for appointment of arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.
Consequently, this Court proceeds to appoint Ms. Depika Mahajan Advocate to act as Arbitrator to settle the dispute between the parties in accordance with law. Copy of this order may be furnished to Ms. Depika Majahan, Advocate to do the needful.
It goes without saying that the parties will be at liberty to raise preliminary objections before the Arbitrator as permissible under law.
Though the contract agreement provides for resolution by arbitration in terms of the Arbitration Act of Jammu and Kashmir State since the applicable law is Arbitration & Conciliation Act of 1996, the arbitration proceedings will be conducted in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. (N. KOTISWAR SINGH) CHIEF JUSTICE SRINAGAR 16.02.2024 Aadil
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.