Facts
The petitioner was awarded a tender by the respondent (CPWD) for the repair and maintenance of 176 MPS flats in New Delhi for the year 2024–25
Source reference: p. 1-2Following the issuance of a Letter of Award dated 27.09.2024, a formal agreement was executed
Source reference: p. 2Work commenced on 30.09.2024 and was completed on 11.02.2025, slightly beyond the stipulated deadline of 29.01.2025
Source reference: p. 5The respondent imposed contractual penalties for delay and subsequently debarred the petitioner from future tenders following a show-cause notice
Source reference: p. 5Disputes arose regarding the non-payment of the final bill dated 25.02.2025
Source reference: p. 5The petitioner referred the dispute to the Dispute Redressal Committee (DRC) as per Clause 25 of the agreement on 28.01.2026, but the respondent failed to constitute the DRC
Source reference: p. 6Consequently, the petitioner invoked arbitration on 05.05.2026 and filed the present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Source reference: p. 2, 6Issues
1. Whether an independent Sole Arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, given the failure to constitute the internal Dispute Redressal Committee
Source reference: p. 6, para 132. Whether the existence of an arbitration agreement and the impartiality of the arbitrator are established as per prevailing judicial precedents
Source reference: p. 6, para 14-15Law Applied
Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which governs the appointment of arbitrators by the Court
Source reference: p. 1Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd. and TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd., which establish that a party interested in the outcome of the dispute cannot unilaterally appoint an arbitrator
Source reference: p. 6Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited, SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, and the In re: Interplay between Arbitration Agreements and the Indian Stamp Act decision
Source reference: p. 6Reasoning
The Court observed that the respondent did not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement contained within Clause 25 of the contract
Source reference: p. 6It noted that the petitioner had followed the requisite pre-arbitral steps, including referring the matter to the DRC and issuing a notice of invocation, to which the respondent failed to respond
Source reference: p. 6Applying the principles from Perkins Eastman, the Court determined that since the administrative mechanism for dispute resolution had failed and the independence of the tribunal is a statutory necessity, the judicial appointment of a neutral arbitrator was warranted
Source reference: p. 6The respondent’s counsel acceded to the appointment of an independent arbitrator, thereby removing any contest regarding the necessity of the tribunal
Source reference: p. 6Holding
The Court allowed the petition and appointed Mr. Divyansh Nigam, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes
The arbitration is to be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC)
Source reference: p. 7The respondent was granted liberty to raise preliminary objections regarding arbitrability and jurisdiction before the arbitrator
Source reference: p. 6-7The Court clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties remain open and that the appointment does not constitute an expression of opinion on the merits of the claims
Source reference: p. 7Original Court PDF
Mohd AmjadvsUnion Of India Through Executive Engineer Cpwd
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in