ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Vs. MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by the Engineering Development Corporation through its partner Mr. Pawandeep Singh Chadha under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for appointment of an independent arbitrator.

(2.) Municipal Corporation of Delhi invited tenders for construction of re-modelling of nallah from Dhouli Piao Road passing between A-2A Block and Government Senior Secondary School, Janak Puri. The petitioner had tendered for the said work and was awarded the work vide work order No. EE(Project)WZ/TC/2001-2001/4/1/59 dated 4th September, 2001. The agreement was executed. The work was to be completed within nine months. According to the petitioner, there was delay in execution of the work because the respondent committed fundamental breaches of the contract. Parties exchanged correspondence and despite odds according to the petitioner, it completed the contracted work to the entire satisfaction of the respondent on 7.9.2003. The petitioner claimed its dues from the respondent and asked it to finalize the final payment but of no consequence and as such, the disputes arose between the parties for which the petitioner wrote a letter dated 27th April, 2005 to the respondent invoking the arbitration clause and requested it to appoint an arbitrator and refer the disputes to the said arbitrator in accordance with law. It is averred by the petitioner that clause 25 of the contract is the arbitration clause and provides for reference of disputes of all kinds to the arbitrator. As the respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator despite service of the notice, the petitioner has been compelled to file the present petition.

(3.) Upon notice on this petition, the respondent appeared. The prayer for appointment of an independent arbitrator under the orders of the court was opposed by the respondent on the ground that the petition itself is not maintainable as the petitioner is neither a registered partnership concern nor the petitioner is the registered partner. It is further averred that no notice as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act has been served upon the respondent. As such, they have not committed any breach of the terms of the agreement or in compliance with the requirement of the arbitration clause. It is stated that the petition itself is not maintainable for want of notice and service thereof upon the respondent in accordance with law. It is stated that the respondent otherwise is willing to treat the present petition as a notice for appointing the arbitrator and for reference of the disputes raised by the petitioner.