MS PURNIMA SAINI vs BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED

$~11

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision:03rd May, 2024
+ ARB.P. 566/2024, I.A. 9905/2024
MS PURNIMA SAINI ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vinod Kumar and Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocates.

versus

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Rishab Raj Jain, Standing Counsel for BSES.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. A Petition under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for appointment of the Sole Arbitrator.
2. The facts as stated in the petition are that the petitioner is the owner of two flats in property A-1/63, 64, Chanakya Place, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and has three electricity connections i.e. two for the flats in the said building and one connection for the lift and ground floor (parking). The respondent Company is engaged in supply of electricity in Delhi having its Division Head Office at Bindapur, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. The petitioner got the property developed and 14 residential flats were constructed with parking at ground floor along with other common amenities. The petitioner approached the respondent Company for providing electric connections for the 14 flats, ground floor and lift of the said building. The officials of the respondent Company asked for a place to put/install a transformer to which the petitioner granted permitted within the premises at ground floor of the building with an intent that the said transformer is to be used only for the said building. The respondent installed a small transformer in the ground floor of the said building.
3. In the month of August-September, 2023 the respondent replaced the small transformer with large one and heavy wire connected to the said transformer. The officials of the respondent Company stated that the said place would be used as a sub-station for the locality and the electricity would be supplied to the adjoining area. The petitioner raised an objection for the same at which the respondent disclosed that there are some documents executed by the petitioner which permits the respondent to use the said area of the property as per the requirements of the respondent.
4. On interruption from the petitioner in laying down heavy wire and other equipment, the respondent issued Notice dated 04.03.2024 alleging contravention of the License Agreement dated 22.02.2022 entered between the parties, threatened to disconnect the electricity connections of the 12 flats and common area and also for recovery of Rs.49,73,058.05/- along with opportunity cost of the money as incurred by the respondent. Clause 11 of the License Agreement dated 22.02.2022 contains dispute resolution clause. The petitioner issued statutory notice dated 04.04.2024 to appoint a sole arbitrator in terms of the Dispute Resolution Clause of the License Agreement, however, the respondent has neither replied to the said Notice nor appointed any sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition for appointment of Sole Arbitrator by the Court.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to the appointment of the learned Arbitrator. He proposes the name of two technical persons either to whom may be appointed as a learned Arbitrator. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a purely legal question to adjudicate the validity of the agreement and insists that the legal person may be appointed as the learned Arbitrator.
6. Considering that there is a valid Arbitration Agreement between the parties and in the light of the facts and discussions, Mr. Amit Kapur, Advocate, Mobile No.9899381000, is hereby appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
7. The parties are at liberty to raise their respective objections before the Arbitrator.
8. This is subject to the Arbitrator making necessary disclosure as under Section 12(1) of A&C Act, 1996 and not being ineligible under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act, 1996.
9. The appointment of the Arbitrator shall be governed by the rules framed by the DIAC including the fees and the disclosure to be made by the learned Arbitrator in conformity of Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
10. Learned counsels for the parties are directed to contact the learned Arbitrator within one week of being communicated a copy of this Order to them by the Registry.
11. A copy of this Order be also forwarded to the learned Arbitrator, for information.
12. The petition along with pending application is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J
MAY 03, 2024
RS

ARB.P. 566/2024 Page 3 of 4