M/s. Nimbus Harbor Facilities Management Pvt. Limited vs Bellevue Central Part KK Condominium Association

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.—The petitioner is a Private Limited Company, duly incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of, inter alia, providing management services including maintenance, engineering and housekeeping. In pursuance to the discussions held with the respondent, a Society, an agreement was entered into on 1.2.2012, for the petitioner to provide housekeeping services at the amount specified. It is the case of the petitioner that enhanced services were asked thereafter from time to time and invoices were also raised from time to time. The agreement inter-se the parties is stated to have been put to an end by the President of the respondent through an E-mail dated 16.7.2013, calling upon the petitioner to withdraw all manpower from the Society with immediate effect, but simultaneously assuring that all dues will be cleared. These dues, however, are stated not to have been cleared despite communications and discussions giving rise to a dispute.

The agreement contained an arbitration clause 20, as under:-

That, if any dispute or differences arise between the parties in relation to or in connection with this agreement, the same shall be resolved through mutual discussions/understanding. However if the parties are unable to resolve the same through mutual dialogues/discussions the same shall be referred to the sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the Association at its discretion for arbitration in accordance with and subject to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory modification thereof for the time being in force. The award by the said sole Arbitrator will be binding on both the parties.

The petitioner, thus, served a notice dated 23.8.2013, through counsel, seeking appointment of Arbitrator in terms of clause 20. There is stated to be no response to the notice nor was the Arbitrator appointed by the respondent, as required by the arbitration clause.

The petitioner filed an Arbitration Petition No. 19 of 2014 before the Delhi High Court which was, however, dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move the competent court of jurisdiction as the parties were based at Gurgaon, the services were rendered at Gurgaon and the agreement had also been signed at Gurgaon. It is, thereafter, that the present petition has been filed u/s 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before this Court.

Notice was issued on 7.2.2014, returnable for today, and calling upon the respondent to file a reply within three weeks of service of notice. The respondent was served on 8.3.2014. None appeared for the respondent on the first call and the matter was passed over and was again called second time at 3.30 p.m., but still none has chosen to appear. No reply has been filed despite the time having elapsed to file the reply, as stated aforesaid.

I appoint Shri B.L. Singhal, District and Sessions Judge (Retired), Flat No. 11, Hope Apartments, Sector 15, Part-II, Gurgaon, as the Sole Arbitrator to enter upon reference and adjudicate the dispute inter-se the parties.

The fee of the Arbitrator shall be as per the rules of the Chandigarh Arbitration Centre.

The petition is, accordingly, allowed. A copy of the order be sent to the Arbitrator.