M/S K.K. CONSTRUCTIONS vs NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

Judgment text excerpt

$~O-63 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 653/2025 Date of Decision: 29.04.2025 IN THE MATTER OF: M/S K.K. CONSTRUCTIONS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhishek Pandey and Mr. Ramesh Pandey, Advs. versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Akshay Verma, ASC and Mr. Ravi Chandra, Adv. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) I.A. 10374/2025 (Exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions 2. The application stands disposed of. ARB.P. 653/2025 3. The present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the 1996 Act) by the petitioner, seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties, in terms of Clause 25.2 of the agreement. 4. At the inception, while the Court was inclined to issue notice, learned Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPAK Signed BISSYAN Signing Date:07.05.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA 17:54:59 KUMAR KAURAV counsel for the respondent, appearing on advance notice, raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability. He invites attention to Clause 25.2 of the Agreement, contending that unless conciliation proceedings stipulated therein are availed, the petitioner is precluded from invoking arbitration. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, refers to Clause 25.2 and submits that the language explicitly renders the conciliation process optional, thereby permitting invocation of arbitration independently, without necessarily resorting to conciliation under Clause 25.1. 6. On examining Clause 25.2, it appears unequivocally clear that the parties have indeed contemplated conciliation as an optional, rather than a mandatory prerequisite. Accordingly, the