G G HOSPITAL Vs. LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, M/s. G.G. Hospital, has approached this Court by way of these original petitions under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking appointment of

(2.) The factual matrix of the petitioner's case, as seen from the affidavits filed in the respective original petitions, is stated in a nutshell hereinbelow :-

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of the above, the construction works commenced on 21.10.2009 and the petitioner was also very prompt in making payments to the respondent as well as M/s. Ascent Engineers for the works done by them respectively. On 27.4.2012, the petitioner applied to the CMDA for issuance of the Completion Certificate, to which the CMDA replied on 31.5.2012 stating that the completed construction did not satisfy the norms as it was an unauthorised construction and deviation from the planning permission. The petitioner pointed out that the respondent had been appointed as the Consultant under the Consultancy Agreement dated 23.4.2008 and under the tripartite agreement too, the respondent was appointed as the Project Management Consultant and therefore, it was the duty of the respondent to ensure that there is no deviation from the planning permission. As advised by the respondent, the petitioner re-submitted the application for Completion Certificate without rectifying the defects pointed out by the CMDA and yet again, the application came to be rejected. According to the petitioner, neither the respondent, nor M/s. Ascent Engineers, were inclined to rectify the deviations pointed out by the CMDA, even though the petitioner requested them to do so at the earliest, so as to enable the petitioner to obtain the Completion Certificate. On account of the inaction of the respondent and M/s. Ascent Engineers, there was considerable delay in the entire project, causing heavy financial loss to the petitioner. Ultimately, the petitioner personally undertook the responsibility of getting the Completion Certificate by engaging a third party contractor, incurring huge costs to the tune of Rs.75 Lakhs for rectifying the deviations pointed out and succeeded in getting the Completion Certificate on 18.12.2012. Thus, the petitioner contended that the respondent as well as M/s. Ascent Engineers failed to discharge their respective obligations under the tripartite agreement, with the latter demanding payment for the works already done by them, thereby refusing to rectify the deviations. This, the petitioner pointed out, led to disputes between the petitioner on the one hand and the respondent as well as M/s. Ascent Engineers on the other. Accordingly, M/s. Ascent Engineers invoked the arbitration clause contained in the tripartite agreement dated 21.10.2009, which stipulated that either party shall choose their respective nominee arbitrators, who shall then choose the presiding arbitrator. However, by mutual consent, the parties agreed to appoint Thiru. Justice Doraiswamy Raju, a former Judge of the Supreme Court, and the arbitration process is currently in progress.