AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajiv Shakdher, J
1 This is a petition seeking appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short “1996 Actâ€).
2 Notice in this petition was issued on 20.11.2017. After several attempts, it appears that the respondent has been served. Despite service, there was
no appearance on behalf of the respondent. On the previous date i.e. 25.10.2018, the matter had to be adjourned as the main counsel for the petitioner
was not available. However, it was recorded in the very same order that as per the affidavit of service filed by the petitioner, the respondent has been
served.
3 Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that it had invited bids via Domestic Competitive Bidding Process for supply of equipment and material and for
provisioning of service. The supply of equipment and material included designing, engineering, manufacturing, testing etc.
3.1 Insofar as provisioning of services was concerned, the tender sought bids for complete construction, execution and commissioning of proposed
switching stations under supplementary transmission system associated with the Vallur Thermal Power Station. It was proposed to set up a station
having an output of 765/400 KV (in short “subject workâ€).
4 It appears that the respondent was the successful bidder and, accordingly, notices of award, both for supply of equipment and services were issued
in its favour. The notices of award issued, qua the supply of equipment and services are of even date i.e., 20.10.2011.
4.1 Pursuant to the above, two formal contracts of even date i.e. 11.11.2011, were executed between the parties.
It is the petitionerâ€s case that the respondent had delayed the execution of the subject work and, therefore, the contracts had to be terminated
after issuance of notice in that behalf. The petitioner claims that the tenure of the agreement was 24 months. It is also the petitionerâ€s case that it
had served a provisional demand notice in the sum of Rs.10 crores on the respondent in respect of “tentative excess expenditure†incurred by it.
The provisional demand was raised, it appears, by the petitioner on 09.02.2016.
The petitioner claims that since the demand was not satisfied, a notice dated 06.05.2017 was served on the respondent, triggering the arbitration
agreement incorporated in Clause 39 of the General Conditions of Contract (in short “GCCâ€).
6.1 The petitioner claims that it did not receive any response to the aforesaid notice.
It is in these circumstances that the petitioner had approached this Court.
In view of the fact that there is no rebuttal, there is obviously no denial on record with regard to the existence of the arbitration agreement.
8.1 Thus, having regard to the submissions made before me and the assertions made in the petition, I am inclined to appoint an Arbitrator.
Mr. Jeshna Sanvel, who, appears for the petitioner, says that he would have no objection if this Court were to appoint a neutral Arbitrator in the
matter.
Consequently, Honâ€ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain, former Judge of the Supreme Court, is appointed as an Arbitrator in the matter. The learned
Arbitrator will be paid fees as per the provisions of the Fourth Schedule appended to the 1996 Act.
10.1 The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
The Registry will dispatch a copy of this order to the learned  Arbitrator as well as the respondent at the address given in the petition.