Sweka Power Tech Engineers Pvt Ltd v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors

ORDER %

30.05.2013 LA.No.9491/2013 (exemption^ Exemptionallowed,subjecttojust exceptions. The application is disposedof Arb.P.No.235/2013 The abovementionedpetitionhas been filed by the petitionerunder Section11(6)of the Arbitrationand ConciUationAct, 1996 for appointment of a sole Arbitrator. The case of the petitioneris that it specializesin the manufactureand supply of decorative poles, bollards, decorative lighting fixture, electric pole, outdoor lighting like high mast, signage mast, mobile mast etc. The petitioner was awarded the work of up-gradationof the stieet lighting of Signed By:RAM DATT Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. roads in Delhi, which was divided into two parts. For the said purpose, an AgreementNo.7/EE-V01/07/08 dated 1^' July, 2008 was executed. The petitioner was also awarded Work Order dated 8^'' June, 2009 bearing No.Ol/MWEEE-IV/2009-2010,and a revised Work Order dated 22"^^ July, 2010 bearing No.40/MUEEE-IV/2010-2011. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner has worked diligently and has procured all men and material to execute the work to the entire satisfaction of the MCD which is evident from the Provisional Completion Certificategrantedbythe MCD on 29^*^ September,2010. Upon completion ^ ofthe work to the satisfactionofthe MCD, the petitionerwas informedthat the five-yearmaintenancepart of the contractwould be started from 25"' September, 2011. The petitioner submits that despite providing efficient semce and ftilfilling all the obligations as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, it has been running from pillai" to post to get its payment from MCD, till date. The ambiguity pertaining to jurisdiction of MCD and PWD had put the petitioner in tremendous financial stress, because the petitioner had been bearing expenses without the release of any payment. As per the petitioner, an amount of ?1,57,14,218/- was due and payable to the petitioner.The petitionersent demandletterdated 3"^ October,2012 to ^ the officesofthe SuperintendingEngineer(Electiical)ofthe North, West, South and East Delhi MCD Zones, raising thereby its demand for the payments due. No decision/response has been communicated from the concerned Superintending Engineers (Electrical) till date. In frutherance of the aforesaid demand letter, the petitioner in teims of Clause 25(i) of the Agreement had also written to the Chief Engineer (Electiical) of the North, South and East Zones of MCD vide letter dated 29^' November,2012. As there was no response,the petitionerby letterdated5"' April, 2013 issuedto the Commissionerof South, North and East Delhi MunicipalCorporation sought appointment of Arbitrator. However, the respondents failed to appointthe Arbitratorwithina periodof 30 days from the receiptof notice. Therefore, the present petition has been filed. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. Without admitting the allegation made in the petition, the leamed counsel for the respondentsstate that their clientshave no objectionif the prayermade in the petition be allowed, provided the respondents be given a chance to suimnon requisite documentswhich are lying before the CBI. They are agreeablethat JusticeR.C.Chopra(Retired)be appointedas a sole Arbitiator to adjudicatethe disputes between the parties. Liberty as prayed for is gi-anted.Thus, as agreedby bothparties.JusticeR.C.Chopra,RetiredJudge of this Court (Mobile No.9818097777//9971411226)is appointed as sole Arbitratorto adjudicateall the disputesand differencesbetweentheparties. The Arbitratorshall conduct the proceedingsunder the provisionsof the Arbitrationand ConciliationAct, 1996 and shall give prior notice before commencing the proceedings. The fee of the leamed Arbitiator shall be payable according to the schedule of fees fixed by Delhi High Court Ai'bitiation Centre under its rules. The petition is disposed of in the above said terms. A copy of this order be communicated to the learned Arbitrator as well as the Secretaryto the ArbitrationCentreforthwith. Copiesof the same be also given dasti to the leamed counsel for the paities, under the signatures of the Court Master. MAY 30, 2013/ka

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

$-67 / * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + . ARB.P. 235/2013 SWEKA POWER-TECH ENGINEERS PVT LTD Petitioner Through Mr.Gaurav Sarin, Adv. with Ms.Veera Angiish, Advs. versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS Respondents Through Ms.MiniPushkama,Standing Counselwith Mi'.ShantanuTyagi, Adv. forR-l/SDMC. Mr.Sunil Goel, Adv. with Mr.Susheel Bhartiya, Adv. for R-2/ NDMC. Mr.Balendu Shekhar, Adv. for R-3/ EDMC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH