Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Sh. Vikram Nanda vs Grand Prospect International ... on 14 June, 2019

Author: Dharam Chand Chaudhary

Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No. 116 of 2018 Decided on: 14.06.2019 .

Sh. Vikram Nanda .......Petitioner Versus Grand Prospect International Communication Pvt. Ltd and others.

......Respondents Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Acting Chief Justice Whether approved for reporting?1No.

For the petitioner: Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate.

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, ACJ (Oral) The present is a petition filed under Section 6(11) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, with a prayer to appoint Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes having arisen between the parties during the execution of work.

The petitioner is running a retail outlet of mobiles of different makes including 'VIVO' under the name and style of 'Connexion Arcade' 59, The Mall Shimla. The petitioner is also authorized dealer of LG brand and is running shop at 71 Ground Floor 72/73 Top Floor, The Mall Shimla. The respondent-Company through its representatives approached the petitioner for affixing sign boards of 'VIVO' 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

at its shops 59, The Mall Shimla and also LG Showroom 71, Ground Floor, 72/73 Top Floor, The Mall Shimla. The terms .

and conditions were settled and agreement duly entered between the parties on 11.03.2017. In terms of agreement, the petitioner had installed sign boards on all three locations of the respondents during the period from 11th March, 2017 to 11th March, 2018 @ monthly visibility incentive of Rs. 1,95,000/- inclusive of taxes and cess payable in every month as agreed mutually. The respondents, however, defaulted in remitting the monthly visibility incentive of Rs.1,95,000/- per month. The petitioner, as such, was constrained to call upon the respondents to release the amount and also to settle the terms of continuing agreement. Consequently, the payment up to September, 2017 was released and imposed upon the petitioner that the agreement is valid and binding till March, 2018. The payment for the period September, 2017 onwards, however, was not made despite repeated requests. In this way, a sum of Rs.11,70,000/- is allegedly due and payable by the respondents to the petitioner. When this amount remained unpaid, the petitioner resorted to the Arbitration clause in the agreement. The respondents, however, failed to appoint the Arbitrator hence this petition.

2. On 31.05.2019, the following orders came to be passed in this matter:-

.

"In the arbitration agreement Annexure P-1 there is arbitration clause at page-15 of the paper book. The petition, as such, should have been disposed of today itself, however, on the request made by learned counsel representing the respondents that his instructions are not complete, adjourned. List on 14.6.2019."

3. However, neither instructions nor reply to the petition filed by the respondents. On the other hand, learned counsel representing them has not opposed the prayer in the application and on instructions stated at Bar that the respondents have no objection in case the Arbitrator is appointed to adjudicate the disputes having arisen between the parties and rightly so because the disputes have arisen between the parties during the course of execution of the work and those can only be decided by way of appointment of an Arbitrator as provided under Clause 15 of the agreement, Annexure P-1. Therefore, Sh.

Anand Sharma, learned Senior Advocate is appointed as Arbitrator to settle all disputes raised by the petitioner Contractor and the respondent.

4. Learned Arbitrator to enter upon the reference at the earliest preferably within two weeks from the date of ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:28:47 :::HCHP receipt of an authorization along with an authenticated copy of this judgment from the Registry of this Court. It is .

expected from the Arbitrator that he will conclude the proceedings, preferably within six months from the date he enters upon the reference. The fee is payable to the Arbitrator as per provisions contained under Section 11 read with schedule-V of the Act, which he shall determine at his own. Fee payable to the Arbitrator shall be shared equally by the parties on both sides. A sum of Rs.50,000/-

shall be paid to the Arbitrator in advance within a week after he enters upon the reference and remaining well before the pronouncement of award.

5. The petition is accordingly allowed and stands dispose of, so also the pending application(s), if any.

(Dharam Chand Chaudhary) Acting Chief Justice June 14, 2019 (naveen) ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:28:47 :::HCHP