Facts & Background:

Facts in CA No.6400/2016:

• Union Of India was the Appellant.
• Pradeep Vinod Construction Company was the Respondent.
• On 14.07.2010, Northern Railways awarded the Respondent a contract valued at ₹5,30,31,369.30 for civil works on the Rewari-Rohtak New Line, which was duly completed on 31.03.2012.
• On 06.05.2014, the appellant issued final payments to the Respondent through Bill No. 00356/104/C/TKJ. Both parties executed a supplementary agreement acknowledging full accord and satisfaction on the same date.
• On 05.05.2014, the Respondent alleged that the final bill was executed under duress due to financial compulsion, claimed an outstanding amount exceeding ₹1.50 crores, and invoked the arbitration clause, seeking payment within 90 days.
• By communication dated 25.07.2014, the Appellant rejected the arbitration claim, asserting that the Respondent had executed the final bill and supplementary agreement, thereby accepting full and final satisfaction of all dues.
• The Respondent filed Arbitration Petition No. 168 of 2015, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator, before the Delhi High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
• The learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court held that the question of whether the discharge certificate and supplementary agreement were signed under duress required evidence and was a matter to be determined by the arbitrator.
• The Delhi High Court held that the Appellant had forfeited its right under the arbitration clause by failing to appoint an arbitrator. Accordingly, it appointed Mr. Ram Prakash (Retd.) as the sole arbitrator.
• Hence, the present appeal.
  

Facts in CA No.6420/2016: - Just writing in case….

• Union of India was the Appellant.
• M/S. BM Construction Company was the Respondent.
• On 17.01.2012, an agreement was executed between Northern Railways and the Respondent for the construction of a two-lane road overbridge near Muradnagar Railway Station at a cost of ₹4,21,69,176.25, which was completed on 03.08.2013.
• The Appellant contended that the Respondent received full and final payment through final bill No. 280 dated 29.01.2014 and executed a supplementary agreement on 01.03.2014, thereby discharging the principal agreement and rendering the arbitration clause inoperative.
• On 15.01.2014, the Respondent raised 2 claims and requested the appointment of an arbitrator. The Appellant rejected this, asserting the claims fell under the "excepted matters" clause and were thus not referable to arbitration.
• The Respondent filed Arbitration Petition No. 531/2014 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The High Court appointed Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate, as Sole Arbitrator, directing arbitration under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre.
  

Main Issue:

• Whether the High Court erred in appointing an independent arbitrator contrary to the provisions of Clause 64(3) of the agreement?