TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court appoints sole Arbitrator to resolve construction contract disputes, emphasizing coercion allegations.</h1> <h3>WISHWA MITTAR BAJAJ & SONS (CONSTRUCTIONS) PVT. LTD. Versus BPTP LTD</h3> WISHWA MITTAR BAJAJ & SONS (CONSTRUCTIONS) PVT. LTD. Versus BPTP LTD - TMI Issues Involved:Petition under Section 11 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking reference to arbitration of disputes arising from a construction contract. Dispute over non-completion of work, delayed payments, and supply issues. Allegations of coercion to sign a settlement deed and indemnity bond. Interpretation of settlement agreement and full and final settlement of claims. Appointment of a sole Arbitrator and arbitration procedure.Detailed Analysis:1. Petition for Arbitration: The petitioner filed a petition seeking reference to arbitration under Section 11 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The dispute arose from a construction contract awarded by the respondent for the construction of Towers for a housing project. The petitioner alleged non-completion of work, delayed payments, and supply issues, leading to a request for arbitration.2. Coercion Allegations: The petitioner claimed that it was forced to sign a settlement deed and an indemnity bond under duress and coercion. The respondent denied these allegations and argued that the settlement had fully and finally settled the petitioner's dues. The court noted the conflicting claims and the need for further examination.3. Legal Precedents: Reference was made to legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Boghara Polyfab Private Limited. The court emphasized the need to determine the genuineness of disputes related to coercion or duress before referring the matter to arbitration to avoid unnecessary costs.4. Appointment of Arbitrator: The court decided to appoint a sole Arbitrator, Justice R.C. Chopra, to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The arbitration would take place under the Rules of the Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre to streamline the process and minimize costs. The fees of the Arbitrator would be as per the DHCAC (Arbitrators' Fees) Rules.5. Conclusion: The petition was disposed of with the appointment of the sole Arbitrator and instructions for arbitration proceedings. The court highlighted the importance of resolving the coercion allegations as a preliminary issue before addressing the substantive claims of the parties, ensuring a fair and thorough arbitration process.This detailed analysis covers the key issues and legal aspects addressed in the judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the court's decision and reasoning.
TaxTMI 