Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (1) TMI 1066

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and K) for Park Grandeura-Group Housing Project at Sector-82, Faridabad to the Petitioner by a letter of intent dated 18th April 2007. 2. The case of the Petitioner was that the non-completion of the work was attributable to the Respondent; payments of outstanding bills/R.A. bills were not made on time and there was delay in supply of ready mix cement as well as steel. According to the Petitioner although it continued to perform its obligations, the Respondent asked it to stop work on 30th April 2010 and foreclosed the contract. The Petitioner states that it submitted the final bill for the tower area for a sum of Rs.63,54,506.01 and for the non-tower area for a sum of Rs.9,88,628.71. The Petitioner further states that since it was in des .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... under "immense pressure from its suppliers and that the Respondent had refused to allow the Petitioner access to the construction site in order to remove machinery, huge quantities of shuttering material as well as equipment belonging to the Petitioner." This was followed by a notice dated 30th July 2011 by the Petitioner to the Respondent invoking the arbitration clause in terms of Clause 67 of the general conditions of contract ('GCC') appended to the work order dated 19th April 2007. Subsequently, the present petition was filed. 5. In its reply filed on 2nd February 2012, the Respondent states that after the parties executed the settlement deed on 11th April 2011 on the basis of the joint measurement of the work, the dues of the Petiti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Raghavendra M. Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, that the Petitioner's claims are not limited to the final bill but also on account of losses and damages suffered including loss of profit on account of delay by the Respondent in supplying ready mix cement and steel and the Petitioner being required to complete certain unfinished works. 8. The Respondent filed an affidavit on 21st September 2012 setting out in para 3 in a tabular form the payments made to the Petitioner in relation to the total value of the work certified for the tower area and non-tower area. Mr. A.K. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent, referred to the fact that out of the total certified value of work of Rs.5,71,32,988 payments had alr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nbsp;      19. It cannot be overlooked that the cost of arbitration is quite huge-most of the time, it runs into six and seven figures. It may not be proper to burden a party, who contends that the dispute is not arbitrable on account of discharge of contract, with huge cost of arbitration merely because plea of fraud, coercion, duress or undue influence has been taken by the claimant. A bald plea of fraud, coercion, duress or undue influence is not enough and the party who sets up such a plea must prima facie establish the same by placing material before the Chief Justice/his designate. If the Chief Justice/his designate finds some merit in the allegation of fraud, coercion, duress or undue influence, he may decide .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Petitioner pointed out that in Clause 67 of the contract a three member arbitral Tribunal is envisaged whereas under the work order the disputes are to be referred to a sole Arbitrator. With a view to minimizing the costs of arbitration, the Court considers it appropriate to refer the parties to a sole Arbitrator. This Court appoints Justice R.C. Chopra, a former judge of this Court (Mob. No. 9818097777, r/o N-113,Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi), as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties including their claims and counter-claims. The parties are agreed that arbitration can take place under the aegis of and as per the Rules of the Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre ('DHCAC'). The fees of the learned Arbitrator will b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates