Pragati Construction Consultants v. Union Of India & ANR.

$~1 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ ARB.P. 74/2017 PRAGATI CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr Vivekanand, Advocate.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr Jagjit Singh, Mr Preet Singh, Ms Kiran Kaushik and Mr Sukhdev Singh, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 24.03.2017 1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the 'Act'), inter alia, praying that an Arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the parties pursuant to the agreement entered into between the parties for construction of 4 lane Road over bridge in lieu of Level Crossing No.113-B at KM 125/07-08 between Bishanpura-Jind Station near Jind Railway Station on Delhi-Bhatinda Section. 2.

The Agreement between the parties is not disputed. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had invoked the arbitration clause by its letter dated 01.12.2015 and 01.11.2016.

3.

Although Mr Singh, learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute that parties had entered into the agreement, he submits that in view ARB P. 74/2017

of the supplementary agreement signed between the parties, the said agreement was discharged and the petitioner has accepted payments in full and final settlement of its dues.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner stoutly disputes the aforesaid contention and states that the supplementary agreement is a standard format agreement and as per the current practice adopted by the respondent, no final bill is cleared unless the supplementary agreement is signed. He has also pointed out the correspondence between the parties prior to the execution of the supplementary agreement and submits that the same indicates that the supplementary agreement was entered into under duress and financial coercion 5.

At this stage, it is not necessary to examine the disputes raised by the petitioner including the question whether the supplementary agreement was executed under coercion. Admittedly, the arbitral tribunal would have the jurisdiction to determine the said question as well. 6.

In view of the above, it is directed that a Sole Arbitrator be appointed under the Rules of Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The parties shall appear before the Co-ordinator, DIAC on 11.04.2017 at 11:00 AM.

The arbitration shall be conducted under the aegis of DIAC and in accordance with its Rules.

7.

The petition is disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J MARCH 24, 2017 MK ARB P. 74/2017