DIVIJA CONSTRUCTION Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed this arbitration application under Sec. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Arbitration Act") seeking appointment of an arbitrator.

(2.) It is pleaded in the arbitration application that the non applicants-respondents awarded a work of providing, laying, jointing, testing and commissioning property connection for sewer lines (RUIDP) in Municipal Area of Dholpur to the applicant and issued a letter of intent dtd. 24/1/2018, which the applicant replied vide its letter of acceptance dtd. 2/2/2018. The applicant within the period stipulated in the agreement, out of 14775 estimated sewer connections, as per the work order, sewer connections work in 11396 house were executed. The applicant made request for resolution of the hindrances, but the hindrances were created in the progress of work and after the applicant submitted a claim of Rs.1,39,84,581.00, the respondents began to threaten the applicant for action of risk and cost and debarring the firm vide its final notice dtd. 4/6/2020. The applicant under Clause 21.3.2 of the General Conditions of the Contract invoked the arbitration clause vide its notice dtd. 19/6/2020 and appointed Shri Gokul Prasad Sharma, Retired Chief Engineer as arbitrator on his behalf. The respondents failed to appoint the arbitrator on their behalf which frustrated the procedure for constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal, hence, the applicant had to prefer the present arbitration application before this Court.

(3.) It is contended by the counsel for the applicant that there is an arbitration clause and the applicant is entitled to have an arbitrator appointed, for which, the respondents contends that the dispute was not sent to the DRB and without there being any order of the DRB, the same could not be referred to arbitration.