S S JETLEY Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an Arbitration Application filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It has been averred that on the arising of the disputes between the parties, the Arbitration Clause was invoked by the Petitioner in terms of its letter dated 22.7.1998. A reminder was sent to the persona designate for the appointment of an Arbitrator on 25.8.1998. Hence the jurisdiction of this Court was invoked.

(2.) Even the filing of the petition has not galvanised the DDA to take immediate action in appointing an Arbitrator. Instead, it has displayed its obduracy in contesting the petition, has filed a Reply to the Claims under disputes and has prayed that the petition may be dismissed. At the time of final hearing, after the petition has needlessly blocked precious and scarce judicial time for almost two years, learned counsel for the DDA has submitted that Shri Som Dev, S.E. (Arbn) II, DDA has now been appointed as the Arbitrator.

(3.) The conduct that the Respondent has demonstrated is behaviour that does not behove a Statutory body. It has deliberately delayed the appointment of the Arbitrator and has compelled the Applicant to initiate and prosecute litigation before this Court. In B.W.L. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. M.T.N.L & Ors., 85(2000) DLT 84 I had observed as follows: