Delhi High Court - Orders
Flfl Travel Retail Lucknow Private ... vs Airports Authority Of India & Anr on 6 December, 2022
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 485/2022
FLFL TRAVEL RETAIL LUCKNOW
PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Deeptakirti
Verma, Mr. Harshad Gada and Ms.
Neha Sharma, Advocates (Mobile
No. 9811118333).
versus
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jasbir Bidhuri, Advocate for
R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 06.12.2022 I.A. 20547/2022 (for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application stands disposed of.
O.M.P. (COMM) 485/2022 & I.A. 20548/2022
1. Issue Notice. Mr. Jasbir Bidhuri, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 be served through all permissible modes, including email. Dasti service, in addition, is also permitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also requested to forward a copy of this order, alongwith the entire paper-book of the petition, to the respondent No. 2, within one week from today.
2. By way of this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ["the Act"], the petitioner seeks to challenge an arbitral award dated 11.08.2022, by which a learned sole Arbitrator has Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:07.12.2022 12:24:31 O.M.P. (COMM) 485/2022 Page 1 of 3 allowed the petitioner's claims only to the extent of approximately Rs. 20,00,000/-, as opposed to the claims raised by it of over Rs. 4,00,00,000/-.
3. The principal ground urged by Mr. D. Rajshekhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, is that the arbitral proceedings have not been conducted fairly, and that the petitioner has been denied equal treatment by the learned Arbitrator, contrary to Section 18 of the Act.
4. In this connection, Mr. Rao submits that, after the award was reserved on 04.06.2022, by an e-mail dated 30.06.2022, the learned Arbitrator called for comments of the parties on a particular aspect. It appears from the record that the respondent No.1 forwarded certain documents to the arbitrator on 15.07.2022, but did not mark a copy thereof to the petitioner herein. The documents were forwarded to the petitioner by the learned Arbitrator only on 06.08.2022, giving time of three days to the petitioner for furnishing a reply. Mr. Rao submits that out of those three days, there was only one working day, as 06.08.2022, 07.08.2022 and 09.08.2022 were Saturday, Sunday and a public holiday on account of Muharram respectively. The petitioner, by way of counsel's communication dated 10.08.2022, sought more time to respond to the documents filed by the respondent No.1, but did not receive any response thereto.
5. The petitioner also made an application under Section 13 of the Act, contending that the learned Arbitrator has been appointed as the Arbitrator by the respondent No.1 in other arbitral proceedings during the pendency of the present proceedings, which was not disclosed to the parties. This application was rejected by the learned Arbitrator by a Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:07.12.2022 12:24:31 O.M.P. (COMM) 485/2022 Page 2 of 3 communication dated 16.08.2022, which records that the award was, in fact, passed on 11.08.2022.
6. Mr. Rao further submits that the petitioner has placed on record a copy of the courier tracking report [document No. 18 of the petitioner's list of documents] by which the award was sent to the petitioner, wherefrom it appears that the package was sent by the courier's Delhi Airport Hub to its Mumbai Chakala Hub only on 13.08.2022.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the learned Arbitrator, who has been impleaded as the respondent No.2 in the present petition, is requested to furnish a report to the Court, particularly with regard to the following two aspects:-
a. Was he appointed as the Arbitrator by the respondent No.1 in any other arbitral proceedings during the pendency of the proceedings between the parties herein and, if so, details may be given of the date of appointment, and any disclosure made to the parties in this regard. b. The proof of the dispatch of the award to the petitioner be placed on record of this Court.
8. In view of the nature of allegations made in the petition, the respondent No.1 will also file an affidavit in reply to the petition within four weeks. The respondent No.1 is also directed to address specifically on the question raised in point (a) recorded in paragraph 7 hereinabove.
9. List on 16.03.2023.
PRATEEK JALAN, J DECEMBER 6, 2022 'vp'/ Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:07.12.2022 12:24:31 O.M.P. (COMM) 485/2022 Page 3 of 3