NCR DEVELOPERS Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred to as the 'Act') seeks appointment of an independent Arbitrator. Brief Facts

(2.) The Petitioner was awarded the contract for Recasting dilapidated/Broken RCC Chajjas, exterior wall painting plasteraluminum work and repair works in the New Administrative Block,University of Delhi by the Respondent on 4th February 2015 for an amount of Rs. 47,39,140/- (forty seven lacs thirty nine thousand one hundred forty only). A formal contract was executed between the Petitioner and the Respondent on 13th February 2015. It is the case of the Petitioner that the work was successfully completed on 31 st Respondent issued a completion certificate dated 14th March 2016. December 2016. Petitioner wrote several letters to the Respondent calling upon them to release the payment for the completed work. The Respondent called upon the Petitioner for negotiation and was informed by the Registrar, DU that the outstanding amount will not be released unless it is lowest in terms of the excess expenditure. Having no alternative, Petitioner agreed to settle for an amount Rs. 62,75,716.19/- (Sixty Two Lacs Seventy Five ThousandSeven Hundred Sixteen) as full and final settlement of it's outstanding dues. Against the said amount, the Respondent released part payment of Rs. 24,60,030/- (Twenty Four Lacs Sixty ThousandThirty). Petitioner contends that since the Respondent has failed to release the entire amount of Rs. 62,75,716.19/- (Sixty Two Lacs Seventy Five ThousandSeven Hundred Sixteen), it is entitled to recover the actual cost/expenditure incurred for completion of the work. Petitioner invoked the Arbitration Clause vide notice dated 14th September 2018 and called upon the Respondent to appoint the Sole Arbitrator. Since the Respondent has failed to appoint an Arbitrator within a period of 30 days of the receipt of the notice, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.

(3.) Respondent does not dispute the existence of the Arbitration clause or it's invocation. However, relying on the condition contained in the clause to the effect "It is also a term of this contract that no person other than a person appointed by V.C./Administrative V.C as aforesaid should act as arbitrator and if for any reason that is not possible the matter is not to be referred to arbitration at all" it is contended that Arbitration clause does not survive. Submission of the parties: