Report on Lack of AC, Drinking Water and WiFi at DU Law Faculty Sought by Delhi High Court  ||  All. HC: DCP Pulled Up for Directing Further Investigation Without Leave of the Magistrate  ||  Kerala HC: Husband Acquitted u/s 304B IPC Can be Held Guilty u/s 498A IPC if Facts Permit  ||  Karnataka Prohibition of Violence Against Advocates Act, 2023 Comes Into Effect From 10th June, 2024  ||  Karnataka HC: PIL Seeking Declaration that Temples are Not Public Authorities, Dismissed  ||  Bom. HC: Karan Johar Files Suit Against Makers of the Film “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar”  ||  Mad. HC: Bar Associations to Pay 15000 to 20,000 to Junior Lawyers Practicing in State  ||  Kerala High Court: E-Toilets to be Build for Flood Affected Tribal Families  ||  Amalgamation of Air Asia With Air India Express Approved by NCLT  ||  SC: Accused Refusing to Undergo Medical Examination Amounts to Non-Cooperation With Investigation    

Chabbras Associates vs Hscc India Limited & Anr. - (High Court of Delhi) (18 Jan 2023)

Procedure prescribed in the Agreement before invocation of the Arbitration Agreement necessarily needs to be followed

MANU/DE/0258/2023

Arbitration

Present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes that have arisen between the parties with respect to the Contract dated 18.09.2018 for Construction of Phase-II works comprising Director's Residence, Type II, III, IV and V Residential quarters for National Institute of Animal Biotechnology (NIAB) at Hyderabad.

The learned counsel for the Respondents submits that, the present petition is premature as the Petitioner has not followed the procedure prescribed for appointment of an Arbitrator. Drawing reference to Clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract ('GCC'), he submits that prior to invoking arbitration, the petitioner has to raise its disputes with the Reviewing Authority, and if it is dissatisfied with its decision, approach the Appealing Authority. If the Petitioner still is dissatisfied with the decision of Appealing Authority, the Petitioner has to raise its dispute with the Dispute Redressal Committee ('DRC'). It is only where the Petitioner or the Respondent is dissatisfied with the decision of the DRC, that arbitration can be invoked.

A reading of the above Clause clearly shows that, before invoking the arbitration, the parties have agreed to the dispute resolution mechanism, where the dispute is first referred to the Reviewing Authority, thereafter to the Appealing Authority and finally to the DRC. It is only where either of the parties is dissatisfied with the decision of the DRC that such party can invoke arbitration. Even the notice invoking arbitration has to give a reference to the decision of the Appealing Authority.

In Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj v. Union of India, this Court has held that the procedure prescribed in the Agreement before invocation of the Arbitration Agreement necessarily needs to be followed, as Section 11 of the Act can be invoked only where the parties have failed to act under the prescribed procedure. The petitioner itself having failed to act in accordance with the prescribed procedure, cannot invoke the remedy of Section 11 of the Act. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed as being premature.

Tags : DISPUTE   APPOINTMENT   ARBITRATOR  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved