Madhya Pradesh High Court: In an application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) for the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties concerning development of the Hukumchand Mill Area, the Single Judge Bench of Deepak Khot, J., allowed the application, holding that the dispute was arbitrable as per the agreement and appointed retired Justice Alok Verma as the arbitrator.
Background
An agreement (‘the agreement/ contract’) was executed between the parties regarding consulting services to be provided by the applicant, CBRE South Asia Pvt Ltd (‘CBRE’), for ‘Preparation of Detailed Masterplan and Project Report for Hukumchand Mill Area at Shivaji Nagar, Indore, Madhya Pradesh’. As per the said agreement, the work assigned to CBRE had to be done as per a prescribed timeline.
Allegedly, due to disputes between the parties, a show cause notice was issued by the respondent, M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board (‘MPHIDB’), stating that the agreement obligations must be completed/remedied within 30 days from the date of issuance of the said notice. CBRE denied the allegations made in the show cause notice but assured that the timeline to complete the project would be adhered to. However, due to the default not being remedied, MPHIDB issued a termination notice for the closure of the contract under Clause 2.9.1(a) (‘Termination Clause’) of the General Conditions of Contract(‘GCC’).
CBRE contended that they issued a letter (‘first notice’) inviting the attention of MPHIDB towards the Arbitration Clause of the agreement. Upon receipt of no response, CBRE issued a notice under Section 11 of the Act (‘second notice’) for referring the matter to the arbitrator. When MPHIDB did not act upon the invocation of the Arbitration Clause, CBRE filed the present application.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court noted that the dispute arose as CBRE could not perform the work assigned under the contract within the stipulated time. Thereafter, as the subject matter of the agreement could not be remedied, the termination notice was issued by MPHIDB, which indicated that there was a serious dispute between the parties regarding the performance of their obligations.
Upon perusal of Clauses 8.1 and 8.2 of the GCC (Arbitration Clauses), the Court noted that in case of dispute regarding any matter under the contract, either party may send a written notice to the other party. The recipient shall consider the notice and respond to it in writing within 30 days, but if they fail to respond within 30 days, or the dispute is not amicably settled within 60 days following the response of the recipient, then Clause 8.2 shall become applicable.
As per the facts of the case, the Court noted that CBRE issued the first notice on 28-11-2024; 30 days thereafter would have been 27-12-2024, and 60 days thereafter would have been 17-01-2025, i.e., the date of filing of the present application. The Court further noted that, as per the Termination Clause, in the event of termination due to dispute, the parties may refer the matter within 45 days for settlement under the Arbitration Clause. The termination notice was issued on 14-11-2024, and reference by CBRE was made on 06-12-2024 by invoking the Termination Clause of the agreement. Thus, the Court held that the reference to the Termination Clause was within 45 days from the date of the termination notice, and the dispute was covered as per the Arbitration Clause of the agreement.
The Court further referred to Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re (2024) 6 SCC 1, wherein it was held that to decide an application under Section 11(6) of the Act, the only important factor is the existence of a prima facie arbitration agreement and no other issues.
From a bare perusal of the documents on record, the Court stated that it was crystal clear that there was an arbitration agreement between the parties, and any dispute between the parties was required to be resolved as per the Arbitration Clause of the agreement. The Court further held that, as per the termination clause, the termination notice was received well within the stipulated time of 45 days, and CBRE invoked the Arbitration Clause by issuing the first and second notices, which showed the intention of the parties to refer the matter for settlement.
Therefore, the Court allowed the application, holding that the dispute being arbitrable between the parties was required to be referred to the arbitrator appointed by the Court under Section 11(6) of the Act. Accordingly, the Court appointed Alok Verma, retired Judge, as the arbitrator.
[CBRE South Asia Pvt Ltd v. M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board, Arbitration Case No. 3 of 2025, decided on 25-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Anurag Gohil
For the respondent: Abhay Kesharwani