High Court of DelhiARB.P./1939/2025

M/S Ramacivil India Construction Pvt Ltd v. M/S Wapcos Limited

2025-12-10Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh12 pages

$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 1939/2025 M/S RAMACIVIL INDIA CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Avinash Trivedi and Mr.Rishank Gola, Advs.

versus M/S WAPCOS LIMITED .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Tushar Sannu, Mr. Fajallu Rehman, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 10.12.2025 1.

This is a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Contractor, who participated in the tender floated by the respondent for "Engineering Procurement and Construction of the National Institute of Unani Medicine (NIUM), Ghaziabad." The petitioner was declared as the successful bidder and was subsequently awarded the Contract vide a formal Agreement No. WAP/RD/NIUM/2018/EPC/dated24.07.2018.

The Agreement was governed by the Clause 55 and 56 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC), which read as under: "Clause 55: Dispute Resolution Except where otherwise provided in the contract, all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, design, drawings and instructions here -in before mentioned The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the contract, designs, drawings, specifications, instructions, orders or these conditions or otherwise concerning the works or the execution or failure to execute the same whether arising during the progress of the work or after the cancellation, termination, completion or abandonment thereof shall be dealt with as mentioned hereinafter:

• If the EPC Contractor considers any work demanded of him to be outside the requirements of the contract, or disputes any drawings, record or decision given in writing by the Engineer-in-Charge on any matter in connection with or arising out of the contract or carrying out of the work, to be unacceptable, he shall promptly within 15 days request Engineer in Charge in writing for written instruction or decisions. Thereupon, the Engineer in Charge shall give his written instructions or decision within a period of one month from the receipt of the EPC Contractor's letter.

• If the Engineer in Charge fails to give his instructions or decision in writing within the aforesaid period or if the EPC Contractor is dissatisfied with the instructions or decision of the Engineer in Charge, the EPC Contractor may, within 15 days of the receipt of decision, appeal to the Executive Director, WAPCOS Limited who shall afford an opportunity to the EPC Contractor to be heard, if the latter so desires, and to offer The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

evidence in support of his appeal. The Executive Director WAPCOS Limited shall give his decision within 45 days after the EPC Contractor submits the said evidence in support of his appeal. If the EPC Contractor is dissatisfied with this decision of Executive Director, WAPCOS Limited, the EPC Contractor shall within a period of 15 days from receipt of the decision of Executive Director, WAPCOS Limited, shall give notice to WAPCOS Limited intimating its dissatisfaction, failing which the decision of Executive Director, WAPCOS Limited shall be final, binding and conclusive and not referable to adjudication by the arbitration.

• In case the EPC Contractor is not satisfied with the decision of Executive Director, WAPCOS, he may proceed for arbitration as detailed in Clause 56 of Part A of GCC given herein after. 56: Arbitration • All disputes or differences which may arise between the EPC Consultant and the EPC Contractor/ Contractor in connection with this Contract (other than those in respect of which the decision is expressed in the Contract to be final and binding) shall after written notice by either party to the other and request to the Chairman cum Managing Director of WAPCOS Limited (who will be the appointing authority) be referred for adjudication to the sole Arbitrator to be appointed as hereinafter provided.

• The appointing authority (CMD, WAPCOS Limited) will send within ninety (90) days of receipt of the notice of arbitration a The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

panel of three names of persons, not directly connected with the work, to the EPC Contractor/ Contractor who will select any one of the persons named to be appointed as a sole Arbitrator within 30 days of receipt of the names. If the appointing authority (CMD, WAPCOS Limited) fails to send to the contractor/ EPC Contractor the 3 names as aforesaid within the period specified, the EPC Contractor/ contractor shall be entitled to invoke the provisions of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 as amended from time to time." 4.

Since there were disputes, the petitioner duly complied with the Arbitral mechanism envisaged under the clauses of GCC and thereafter invoked arbitration vide legal notices dated 13.02.2025 and 15.02.2025. 5.

Subsequently, two meetings were held between the representatives of the parties to arrive at an amicable resolution on 14.02.2025 and 08.03.2025, respectively. On 29.04.2025, the petitioner in fact wrote a letter to the Chairman cum Managing Director to keep the legal notices invoking arbitration dated 13.02.2025 and 15.02.2025 in abeyance for six weeks. Since, no resolution was arrived at and no payment was made, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

On the first date of hearing, Mr. Sannu, learned counsel for the respondent, had accepted notice and sought time to file a reply. He has handed over the reply in Court today which is taken on record. 7.

I have perused the reply and the only objection raised is preliminary in nature, which reads as under:

"It is submitted that the there is no provision in law or contractual clause in Contract Agreement between parties The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

which stipulates for 'holding of invocation of arbitration'. Thus, once the invocation did not succeed due to settlement talks/ exploring of amicable ways to settle, then the Petitioner herein has to comply with pre-arbitration steps as mandated in Clause 55 before directly invoking Clause 56 after the pause/hold." 8.

A perusal of the reply shows that the stand of the respondent is that once the invocation did not succeed due to settlement talks or exploring amicable ways to settle the dispute between the parties, the petitioner again has to comply with the pre-arbitration steps. 9.

I am unable to agree with the aforesaid stand. The letter dated 29.04.2025 only kept the notice in abeyance and was revived on 18.06.2025. The letters read as under:

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

10.

It is not a case where, the holding of settlement talks would negate the entire process of pre-arbitral mechanism as well as notice invoking arbitration. There is no such provision either under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or the Contract governing the parties. 11.

For the said reasons, the petition is allowed and the following directions are issued:- i) Ms. Abhimanyu Mahajan (Advocate) (Mob. No. 9811103447) is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

ii) The arbitration will be held under the aegis and rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi (hereinafter, referred to as the 'DIAC'). iii) The remuneration of the learned Arbitrator shall be in terms of DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators' Fees) Rules, 2018. iv) The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration in terms of Section 12 of the Act prior to entering into the reference. v) It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the parties, including as to the arbitrability of any of the claim, any other preliminary objection, as well as claims/counter-claims and merits of the dispute of either of the parties, are left open for adjudication by the learned arbitrator.

vi) The parties shall approach the learned Arbitrator within two weeks from today.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

12.

The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. JASMEET SINGH, J DECEMBER 10, 2025/AS The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.