In a recent ruling by the High Court of Delhi, Justice Prathiba M. Singh appointed a sole arbitrator, Justice A.K. Sikri (Retd.), to resolve disputes spanning nine contracts related to a large-scale Carbon Black Plant Project in Dahej, Gujarat. This decision aims to streamline the process and avoid conflicting judgments that might arise from separate proceedings.
The legal contention centered around the existence of arbitration clauses in only five out of the nine contracts involved in the dispute. The petitioner, a contractor engaged in structural and mechanical jobs, had raised claims exceeding Rs. 10 crores. Despite some contracts lacking explicit arbitration clauses, the High Court considered the overall context of the project and correspondence between parties to justify a unified arbitration process.
This approach follows the precedent set by previous rulings which suggest that when contracts are part of a single commercial project, disputes can be referred collectively to arbitration to ensure efficient resolution. The court emphasized the need to avoid multiplicity of disputes and potential conflicting rulings, underscoring the interconnected nature of the contracts.
By directing the arbitration under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) with set rules and scheduled proceedings, the court has paved the way for a consolidated resolution process.
| Case Title | Judge | Lawyers | Date of Order |
|---|---|---|---|
| MS KGPS Mechanical Pvt. Ltd. v. CINDA Engineering and Construction Pvt. Ltd. | Justice Prathiba M. Singh | Petitioner: Mr. Kaveesh Nair, Ms. Rachael Tuli, Ms. Mahima Mukherjee; Respondent: Mr. Gauhar Mirza, Ms. Hiral Gupta, Mr. Ritik Kumar Rath | April 22, 2024 |
| Key Points | Finding |
|---|---|
| Arbitration Clause Existence | Arbitration clauses existed in only five of the nine contracts. |
| Unified Arbitration Justification | Correspondence and project context allowed for unified arbitration across all contracts. |
| Appointment of Sole Arbitrator | Justice A.K. Sikri (Retd.) appointed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. |
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| December 13, 2023 | Petitioner invoked arbitration. |
| January 4, 2024 | Respondent proposed a sole arbitrator for all contracts. |
| January 9, 2024 | Petitioner agreed to the proposal. |
| April 22, 2024 | High Court appointed the sole arbitrator and set the proceedings under DIAC. |
