DESIGNERS GUILD UNITED Vs. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act in short), the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) THE petitioner, which is a partnership firm provides architectural services. It is the petitioner's case that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had invited tenders for a mega project for construction of HIG Multistorey flats spread over an area of 8.374 hectares in Dwarka, Phase II, Delhi. The work was to be executed on turnkey i.e. Design and Built basis and included the task of providing comprehensive architectural services relating to design of buildings. The respondent desirous of submitting its bid for the said project, was required to submit architectural drawings of all floors and other details, in compliance with the MPD -2021 norms, municipal bye -laws and other specifications. The respondent as a bidder was required to engage a structural engineer having minimum qualification M.Tech (Structures) with 15 years' experience.

(3.) IT is also the case of the petitioner that the parties had agreed to make the work order/agreement, a binding contract non -terminable at the will of either of the parties. The petitioner's case is that in terms of Architects (Professional Conduct) Regulations, 1989 framed by Council of Architecture, it is mandated that Architect already engaged on a project cannot be supplanted by another Architect. It is the petitioner's case that on being assured in the aforesaid manner, the petitioner got agreed to provide its professional service for a meagre sum of Rs. 7.50 lakhs and in terms of clause 5.2, in the event of successful award of contract/project, the respondent also offered and agreed to immediately pay an additional fee of Rs. 7.50 lakhs to the petitioner, defined as 'success fee'. The petitioner's case is that it has engaged all its resources at the pre -bid stage to work out the entire lay out scheme, conceptual architect and all sort of engineering designs on most urgent basis. After being successful and after getting Letter of Intent from DDA, the respondent had paid a sum of Rs. 7.50 lakhs to the petitioner. Thereafter also, the petitioner provided post -bid services to the respondent and has also raised a bill for payment against its post -bid services and for compensation for pre -bid services. The petitioner's stand is that instead of making payment against the aforesaid bills raised by the petitioner and without making an attempt, in terms of clause 8.0 of the work order/agreement, to amicably resolve disputes and differences, if any, on 29.11.2014, the respondent sent a letter unilaterally, terminating the engagement of the petitioner for the aforesaid project on entirely false, frivolous and baseless grounds. It is noted that the petitioner had responded to the said communication from the respondent. It is also the stand of the petitioner that respondent had formally invited the petitioner for reconciliation but had not made any sincere effort to resolve the matter. Pursuant thereto, a legal notice got issued through its counsel on 11.12.2014, which was replied to by the respondent vide letter dated 3.1.2015.