Ms Rd Non Toxic Products vs Union Of India on 15 March, 2021

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Ms Rd Non Toxic Products vs Union Of India on 15 March, 2021

1. The present transfer petition has been filed seeking transfer of petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1996') bearing O.M.P. (COMM) 45 of 2020, titled Union of India (Northern Railways) v. R.D. Non-Toxic Products pending before the District Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Central District, Delhi to be heard along with petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 bearing O.M.P. (Comm) 545 of 2020, titled R.D. Non-Toxic Products v. Union of India (Northern Railways).

2. Both the petitions under Sections 34 of the Act of 1996 arise out of the same arbitral award dated 21st November, 2019. In terms of the judgment in Gammon India Ltd. & Ors. v. National Highways Authority of India [AIR 2020 Delhi 132], it would be preferable that the petitions arising out the same arbitral award be heard in the same Court in order to avoid any TR.P.(C.) 17/2021 Page 1 of 3 Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:16.03.2021 18:17:47 factual or legal contradiction. The relevant portion of the judgement is as under:

44. The issue of multiplicity in arbitral proceedings also needs to be effectively dealt with to ensure that a long-drawn arbitral journey, as in the present case, is avoided. Parties to arbitration are expected to adhere to a bona fide discipline of use of arbitral processes.

There appears to be a clear need for streamlining the same. The Delhi High Court has issued several practice directions under the Act. One such direction requires that when petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, are filed, it is mandatory for the party to mention that no other petition on the same cause of action was filed. In an attempt to further avoid multiplicity of Tribunals and inconsistent/contradictory awards, as has arisen in the present case, the following directions are issued:

i. In every petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, "Section 34 petition"), the parties approaching the Court ought to disclose whether there are any other proceedings pending or adjudicated in respect of the same contract or series of contracts and if so, what is the stage of the said proceedings and the forum where the said proceedings are pending or have been adjudicated.

ii. At the time when a Section 34 petition is being heard, parties ought to disclose as to whether any other Section 34 petition in respect of the same contract is pending and if so, seek disposal of the said petitions together in order to avoid conflicting findings.

iii. In petitions seeking appointment of an Arbitrator/Constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal, parties ought to disclose if any Tribunal already stands constituted for adjudication of the claims of either TR.P.(C.) 17/2021 Page 2 of 3 Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:16.03.2021 18:17:47 party arising out of the same contract or the same series of contracts. If such a Tribunal has already been constituted, an endeavor can be made by the arbitral institution or the High Court under Section 11, to refer the matter to the same Tribunal or a single Tribunal in order to avoid conflicting and irreconcilable findings. iv. Appointing authorities under contracts consisting of arbitration clauses ought to avoid appointment or constitution of separate Arbitrators/Arbitral Tribunals for different claims/disputes arising from the same contract, or same series of contracts.

3. Mr. Jagjit Singh, ld. counsel appears for the Respondent. Ld. counsel confirms that both petitions arise out of the same dispute between the same parties.

4. Considering the fact that both the petitions arise out of disputes between the same parties, same contract and the same arbitral award, the transfer petition is allowed. O.M.P. (COMM) 45 of 2020, titled Union of India (Northern Railways) v. R.D. Non-Toxic Products pending before the District Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Central District, Delhi is transferred to be heard along with petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 bearing O.M.P. (Comm) 545 of 2020, titled R.D. Non-Toxic Products v. Union of India (Northern Railways), before the Original side of Delhi High Court.

5. With these observations, the present petition, with all pending applications, is disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J MARCH 15, 2021 dj/AP TR.P.(C.) 17/2021 Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders