MISC. Petition No. 462 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12918 CMP No. 462 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 462 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. M/S D K AND ASSOCIATES A PROPRIETORSHIP CINCERN REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. DINESH KUMAR SHARMA OFFICE AT A-3985 DEFENCE COLONYH NEW DELHI 110024 EMAIL ID DPS [email protected] [email protected] (BY SRI. PRINCY PONNAN.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NO.1, BUILDIGNS DIVISIONS SJP CAMPUS BANGALORE 560 001 EMAIL ID [email protected]
Legal Reasoning
Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONER - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12918 CMP No. 462 of 2024 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERMENT OF KARANTAKA PWD ROOM NO. 335, 3RD FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE 560 001 …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI.M.SRINIVAS KUMAR, HCGP) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO EXERCISE THE POWER UNDER THE SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 AND APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR AS PER THE AGREEMENT DATED 08.01.2019 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AS DETAILED IN ANNEXURE - A AS PER CLAUSE 7 OF GCC AND CLAUSE 7.2 OF SCC TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEENT THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12918 CMP No. 462 of 2024 ORAL ORDER This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking for an appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute that has arisen between the parties to the petition. 2. Heard Sri.M.Srinivas Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement, now the dispute has arisen between the parties to the petition. The Petitioner issued an arbitration notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, proposing the name of Sri.A.K.Singhal, DG (W), CPWD (Retd.), as an Arbitrator. The respondent replied to the arbitration notice and declined to accept the name of the Arbitrator proposed by the petitioner. Hence, she prays to allow the petition. 4. Per Contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, though he has filed a statement of objections but Page No.3 is retyped and replaced vide Court order dated 20.06.2025 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12918 CMP No. 462 of 2024 after going through the contents of agreement "Form of Contract" dated 08.01.2019, he submits that the respondents have no objection to appoint an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute arisen between the petitioner and respondent No.1 as per clause 7 of General Conditions of Contract (GCC), Special Conditions of Contract (SCC) vide annexure A. 5. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The point that arises for consideration is; Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the matter to the Arbitrator to resolve the dispute arisen between the petitioner and respondent No.1 in terms of agreement. 7. It is not in dispute that the respondents floated a tender inviting the proposal to provide consultancy service for the proposed construction of Karnataka Bhavan - I by dismantling the existing Karnataka Bhavan at Kautilya Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi -110022 and the same was approved, the tender letter dated 24.11.2018 was - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12918 CMP No. 462 of 2024 issued by respondent No.1. The petitioner and respondent No.1 entered into an agreement titled as "Form of Contract", dated 08.01.2019. Respondent No.1 issued a work order dated 28.01.2019 for the work. Respondent No.1 executed a supplementary work order dated 30.07.2022, whereby total project cost and consultancy fee were revised. Various correspondences were exchanged between the petitioner and respondent No.1, wherein the petitioner pointed out discrepancies to respondent No.1. Petitioner called upon respondent No.1 for discussion for an amicable settlement of disputes and differences which has arisen between the parties as per 7.1 of the GCC on 01.02.2024. The petitioner issued a letter dated 10.05.2024 invoking an Arbitration clause i.e., Clause 7 of GCC and Clause 7.2 of the SCC. Respondent No.1 denied the notice invoking the Arbitration. The petitioner has no other alternative remedy. 8. I have perused the agreement, which provides the Arbitration Clause 7.2.1, which reads as under. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12918 CMP No. 462 of 2024 "7.2.1 Selection of Arbitrators: Each dispute submitted by a Party to arbitration shall be heard by a sole arbitrator or an arbitration panel composed of three arbitrators, in accordance with the following provisions: (a) Where the Parties agree that the dispute concerns a technical matter, they may agree to appoint a sole arbitrator or, failing agreement on the identity of such sole arbitrator within thirty (30) days after receipt by the other Party of the proposal of a name for such an appointment by the Party who initiated the proceedings, either Party may apply to the President, Institution of Engineers India, New Delhi, for a list of not fewer than five nominees and, on receipt of such list, the Parties shall alternately strike names therefrom, and the last remaining nominee on the list shall be the sole arbitrator for the matter in dispute. If the last remaining nominee has not been determined in this manner within sixty (60) days of the date of the list, the President, Institution of Engineers India, New Delhi, shall appoint, upon the request of either Party and from such list or otherwise, a sole arbitrator for the matter in dispute. (b)Where the Parties do not agree that the dispute concerns a technical matter, the Client and the Architect consultants shall each appoint one arbitrator, and these two arbitrators shall jointly appoint a third arbitrator, who shall chair the arbitration panel. If the arbitrators named by the Parties do not succeed in appointing a third arbitrator within thirty (30) days after the latter of the two arbitrators named by the Parties has been appointed, the third arbitrator shall, at the request of either Party, be appointed by - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12918 CMP No. 462 of 2024 Secretary, the Indian Council of Arbitration, New Delhi. (c) If, in a dispute subject to Clause SC 7.2.1 (b), one Party fails to appoint its arbitrator within thirty (30) days after the other Party has appointed its arbitrator, the Party which has named an arbitrator may apply to the Secretary, Indian Council of Arbitration, New Delhi, to appoint a sole arbitrator for the matter in dispute, and the arbitrator appointed pursuant to such application shall be the sole arbitrator for that dispute." 9. From the perusal of Clause 7.2.1 of the agreement dated 08.01.2019, which provides that each dispute submitted by the party to the arbitration shall be heard by a sole arbitrator. Admittedly, an arbitration clause is in existence and the dispute has arisen between the petitioner and respondent No.1.
Decision
10. In view of the above discussions, the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator, and I answer the point for consideration in the affirmative. 11. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12918 CMP No. 462 of 2024 ORDER 1. Civil Miscellaneous petition is allowed. 2. Sri.A.K.Singhal, DG (W), CPWD (Retd.), is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties in terms of clauses 7 and 7.1 of the Form of Contract dated 08.01.2019 as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 3. The Office is directed to forward the copy of this order to the learned Arbitrator and the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 Page No.8 is retyped and replaced vide Court order dated 20.06.2025