Delhi High Court - Orders
Poonam Mittal vs M/S Creat Ed Pvt. Ltd on 17 March, 2023
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 80/2023
POONAM MITTAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Suruchi Mittal, Advocate
versus
M/S CREAT ED PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
ORDER
% 17.03.2023
I.A. 5260/2023 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 80/2023
1. The instant petition under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
"a) Pass an order or direction under Section 29A(4)(5) of Act, 1996, extending the period for arbitration proceedings in case ref no: DIAC/1899/01-18- titled as "Poonam Mittal Vs M/s Creat Ed Pvt. Ltd. before Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) by a period of six months;
b) Pass an order and direction of substituting Sole Arbitrator Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GAURAV SHARMA Signing Date:18.03.2023 15:21:28 by DIAC, under Section 29A(6) of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 as the Petitioner/Claimant has lost faith and trust in the present Sole Arbitrator and gross negligence on his part to permit cross examination under arbitration proceedings for such a long period of time..."
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that there are certain disputes between the parties which pertain to Franchise Agreement signed between them. For resolution of the said disputes, the parties were referred to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (hererinafter "DIAC"). However, the petitioner is now seeking extension of time for completion of the arbitration proceedings and substitution of arbitrator previously appointed.
3. It is submitted that the respondent has malafidely and with ulterior motive stretched the cross-examination of CW-1 on eight occasions without any defence. CW-1 was cross examined for four hours on one date of the proceedings and the cross examination was deliberately not concluded by respondent's counsel. It is further submitted that the respondent's conduct since the inception of proceedings has been dilatory. First, the respondent did not file Statement of Defence within time, thereafter, when it was filed, it was without any requisite application. After the right to defence was waived off by the DIAC in June, 2018 and defence struck off in September, 2018, an application in October, 2018 was made to recall the order dated 26th September, 2018 without any ground whatsoever. Thereafter, proceedings were stalled before the learned Trial Court, where Section 34 application was filed without any jurisdiction. After resumption of arbitral proceedings cross examination of CW-1 has been stretched for about two Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GAURAV SHARMA Signing Date:18.03.2023 15:21:28 years to get the mandate terminated and so was permitted by the learned Sole Arbitrator.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that on 19th January, 2023, the issue of mandate was raised. It is submitted that the manner in which the issue of mandate was raised by the learned Sole Arbitrator and discussion without interruption and in continuation was joined by respondent's counsel, makes claimant lose faith and trust, in the proceedings before the learned Sole Arbitrator. Hence, it is prayed that the proceedings be brought to its logical conclusion and time be granted for passing of Award by the substituted Sole Arbitrator from the stage of proceedings where they were halted.
5. Heard.
6. On filing PF within a week, issue notice to the respondent through all permissible modes, returnable on 3rd May, 2023.
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J MARCH 17, 2023 Dy/ms Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GAURAV SHARMA Signing Date:18.03.2023 15:21:28