NAVNIRMAN DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS (I) PVT. LTD Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER AND PRESIDENT DISTRICT SPORTS COMPLEX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal filed under Sec. 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the appellant has challenged judgment and order dtd. 16/11/2007, passed by the District Court at Pune, whereby an application filed under Sec. 34 of the said Act by respondent No.1 was allowed and the arbitral award was interfered with. It is the case of the appellant that the District Court failed to appreciate the narrow scope of jurisdiction available under Sec. 34 of the said Act to interfere with the arbitral award and that there is a jurisdictional error committed by the District Court in the present case.

(2.) The facts, in brief, leading to filing of the present appeal are that the appellant, being a company involved in the profession of architectural designing and other consultancy services, was engaged by respondent No.1 for the project of construction of a Sports Complex at Pune, consisting of a stadium, various playgrounds, gymnasium and swimming pool. An agreement was executed between the appellant and respondent No.1, in connection with the said project and for availing the services of the appellant. The said agreement contained clause No.3.8, pertaining to arbitration for resolution of disputes that may arise between the parties. Although the appellant has referred to a series of developments during the course of providing services to respondent No.1, what is relevant for the present appeal is that, disputes arose between the parties, leading to the termination of appointment of the appellant as architect for the said project. The parties levelled allegations and counter-allegations against each other.

(3.) In August, 2004, the appellant filed an application before the District Court under Sec. 9 of the aforesaid Act, praying for an order to restrain respondent No.1 from appointing any other architect for the said project, till disposal of arbitration proceedings. The said application was rejected, whereupon the appellant invoked the arbitration clause and proposed appointment of an arbitrator. Since respondent No.1 failed to respond to the said letter of the appellant, it was constrained to approach this Court under Sec. 11 of the aforesaid Act by filing Arbitration Petition No.7 of 2005, for appointment of arbitrators. On 12/8/2005, this Court appointed an arbitral tribunal consisting of three members.