AIRTECH PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties entered into an agreement whereby the petitioner was required to undertake work for fabrication and erection of 5 numbers refuse compactors of 14 cum capacity each to be mounted on Ashok Leyland Chassis. Disputes arose between the parties and notice was given by the petitioner to the respondent for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of clause 11 of the agreement. The respondent vide its letter dated 21st April, 1994, rejected the request of the petitioner for appointment of an Arbitrator. This letter reads as follows :

(2.) Notice of this application was given to the respondent. Reply was filed to the application. Subsequently, the petitioner amended the petition, but no reply was filed by the respondent despite opportunity. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that as far back as 25th February, 1994, it called upon the Administrator, NDMC for appointment of an Arbitrator, but the request was refused. In the, circumstances, he submits that this Court should appoint an independent Arbitrator. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Nandyal Coop. Spinning Mills Ltd. vs. K.V. Mohan Rao, 1993 (2) SCC 654 and G. Ramachandra Reddy and Co. vs. Chief Engineer, Madras Zone, Military Engineering Service, AIR 1994 (5) SC 142. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner while giving notice requiring the respondent to appoint an Arbitrator did not enumerate its claims and, therefore, he cannot ask this Court to appoint an Arbitrator instead of seeking a direction to the respondent to make the appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of the agreement. In support of his submission he relied upon the decision of the Orissa High Court in Niranjan Swain vs. State of Orissa and others, AIR 1980 Ori 142.

(3.) I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. There is ample authority for the proposition that in case the authority designated in the arbitration clause does not appoint an Arbitrator despite a request in this regard from the opposite contracting party, the Court will be entitled to appoint an independent Arbitrator in a petition moved by that party under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. In Nandyal Coop, Spinning Mills case (supra) the Supreme Court in this regard held as follows :