M C SHARMA ASSOCIATES CONSULTANTS PVT LTD Vs. RAJASTHAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE AND FINANCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The arbitration application has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') for appointment of an independent arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties.

(2.) It appears that the applicant is the company incorporated under the Companies Act engaged in the business of consultancy. The applicant entered into a contract for consultancy work for preparation of Detailed Feasibility & Project Report and General Arrangement Drawings, for which the work order was issued to the applicant on 23/4/2010 (Annexure-1), and the formal agreement was executed on 12/5/2011(Annexure-2). According to the applicant, the disputes arose between the parties in respect of the execution of the contract in question, and therefore the applicant vide the notice dated 9/10/2013(Annexure-7) invoking the clause 7.1 of the agreement in question requested the respondents to make appointment of an independent arbitrator raising the objection with regard to the partiality and independence of the named arbitrator. The respondent No.1 vide the reply dated 11/11/2013 (Annexure-8) refused to appoint the arbitrator and insisted for referring the dispute to the Additional Chief Secretary, UDH and LSGD, Government of Rajasthan. The applicant again vide the notice dated 11/12/2013-Annexure-9, requested the respondents to appoint the retired Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, however the respondents again vide the letter dated 20/12/2014(Annexure-11) refused to appoint the arbitrator as suggested by the applicant. The applicant therefore has approached this Court seeking appointment of an independent arbitrator.

(3.) The application has been resisted by the respondents by filing the reply raising the preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the application by contending interalia that there was no arbitration clause as relied upon by the applicant. It is also contended that the applicant was required to approach the Principal Secretary, UDH, now redesignated as Additional Chief Secretary, for appointment of arbitrator and the applicant having not followed the said procedure, the application deserves to be dismissed.