Delhi High Court - Orders
Grim Tech Projects India Pvt Ltd vs Aneja Constructions India Limited on 30 August, 2022
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ARB.P. 98/2017
GRIM TECH PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bipin Kr. Prabhat, Advocate
(through video conferencing).
versus
ANEJA CONSTRUCTIONS INDIA LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 30.08.2022 CRL.M.A. 39222/2019 (U/S 340 of Cr.P.C., 1973)
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner appeared in the morning through video conferencing. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent on first and second call.
2. The present application has been filed under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C., 1973") on behalf of the applicant-Gagan Jyot Singh, Director/Authorized Representative of the respondent seeking initiation of an inquiry under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., 1973 for offences under Sections 191/193 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC, 1860") committed by the petitioner in a judicial proceeding.
3. The applicant has submitted in its application that Grim Tech Projects India Pvt. Ltd., which was the petitioner in ARB.P. 98/2017, the accused/petitioner herein had filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "A&C Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed ARB.P. 98/2017 Page 1 of 4 By:SAHIL SHARMA Signing Date:05.09.2022 16:15:25 Act, 1996"), wherein false and fabricated documents showing the Arbitration Clause along with the Work Order dated 24 th July, 2013 were filed to secure fraudulently and dishonestly a favourable order from this Court.
4. It is submitted that vide Order dated 10th April, 2017, this Court directed Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) to appoint an Arbitrator. In compliance of the Order dated 10th April, 2017, Shri M.L. Sahni was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator vide Letter dated 01st January, 2018 to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The learned Arbitrator made an Award on 30th May, 2019.
5. The respondent/accused in the present application filed the Statement of Claims along with the documents. The perusal of the documents reflects that the respondent had filed false and fabricated Annexures along with the Work Order dated 24th July, 2013 before the learned Arbitrator.
6. The applicant, who was the respondent in the Arbitration Petition, filed an Application under Section 16 of A&C Act, 1996 before learned Arbitrator challenging the jurisdiction of learned Arbitrator, as the Work Order dated 24th July, 2013 did not contain any Arbitration Clause.
7. The accused/petitioner in reply to the Application under Section 16 of A&C Act, 1996 categorically denied that there were no Annexures attached along with the Work Order dated 24th July, 2013.
8. It is submitted that during the cross-examination, the expert witness of the petitioner herein/accused, Shri Ranjeet Kumar Singh (CW-3) admitted the commission of offences by the accused/respondent as it was admitted that the Work Order dated 24th July, 2013 consisted of only one page, whereas the respondent herein has filed three-page Work Order dated 24th Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed ARB.P. 98/2017 Page 2 of 4 By:SAHIL SHARMA Signing Date:05.09.2022 16:15:25 July, 2013. The respondent herein filed the Annexures along with Work Order dated 24th July, 2013, which were false and fabricated. Hence, the respondent committed offences under Sections 191 and 193 read with Section 120B of IPC, 1860.
9. A prayer has, therefore, been made that an inquiry under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., 1973 be initiated into the fraud committed by the respondent herein in furtherance of criminal conspiracy by filing a false affidavit for fraudulent purpose to initiate Arbitration proceedings.
10. No formal reply has been filed to the present application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., 1973, but the petitioner herein has relied on the documents which include Reply to the Application under Section 16 of A&C Act, 1996 filed by the respondent before the learned Arbitrator, wherein it was explained that the 1st Work Order was issued on 07th March, 2013, which was subsequently amended on 24th July, 2013, which is evident from the Notice under Section 11 of A&C Act, 1996 that was issued by the respondent. The Work Order was initially issued on 07th March, 2013 which contained amended Work Order executed on 24th July, 2013. It was agreed between the parties that the terms and conditions shall remain the same as per the earlier Work Order.
11. Though in the petition, it was mentioned that the amended Work Order was dated 24th July, 2013 which was admittedly a single document but it was a continuum of the Work Order dated 07th March, 2013 and Terms and Conditions decided therein were applicable to the amended Work Order.
12. It was explained that there was no concealment or any fraudulent assertions made by the petitioner in claiming an Arbitration Agreement in respect of Work Order dated 24th July, 2013. It was, therefore, asserted in Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed ARB.P. 98/2017 Page 3 of 4 By:SAHIL SHARMA Signing Date:05.09.2022 16:15:25 the reply that no offence has been committed by the respondent herein.
13. Though the respondent has failed to appear to address the submissions on the present application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., 1973, but the record and the document relied upon by the applicant show that there was no fraudulent manipulation of the documents. The original Work Order dated 07th March, 2013 contained the Terms and Conditions, including the resolution of the disputes through Arbitration. The reference to the Work Order dated 24th July, 2013 was only an amended Work Order and the terms and conditions annexed were those as agreed between the parties in the Work Order dated 07th March, 2013.
14. It may be observed that the learned Arbitrator appointed pursuant to order of this Court has even announced and published the Award. The application under Section 16 of A&C Act, 1996 taking an objection about the non-existence of the Arbitration clause was taken before the learned Arbitrator. Though applicant fails to disclose that it had been decided.
15. It is quite evident from the submissions made in the application and the documents filed by the applicant herein in support thereof that there were no forged or fraudulent documents placed on record by the respondent herein or that there was no valid Arbitration Clause or that undue benefit has been taken by the respondent.
16. Prima facie, no offence has been disclosed under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., 1973. The present application is frivolous and the same is hereby dismissed.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J AUGUST 30, 2022 S.Sharma Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed ARB.P. 98/2017 Page 4 of 4 By:SAHIL SHARMA Signing Date:05.09.2022 16:15:25