Delhi High Court - Orders
Yogesh Malik vs M/S Sijori International Llp on 2 December, 2021
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ARB.P. 1075/2021, I.As. 14367/2021, 14368/2021
YOGESH MALIK ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Akhilendra N. Singh and
Mr. Gaurav Ahlawat, Advocates.
versus
M/S SIJORI INTERNATIONAL LLP ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. B.B. Gupta, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Kartik Bhardwaj and Mr.
Achal Gupta, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 02.12.2021
[VIA HYBRID MODE]
1. The present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter "the Act"] seeks appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes pertaining to Letter of Intent dated 02nd July, 2021 [hereinafter "LoI"].
2. The present petition is premised on the plea that the LoI, which contains the arbitration clause is a forged and fabricated document. The arbitration agreement contained therein is reproduced as under: -
"The disputes and differences between the parties shall be adjudicated by the Sole Arbitrator Justice Rajesh Tandon (Retd.) former Judge of the Nainital High Court. All proceedings will be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996."
3. Mr. Akhilendra N. Singh, counsel for the Petitioner submits that Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed ARB.P. 1075/2021 Page 1 of 3 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:06.12.2021 11:24 although he disputes the veracity of the LoI, however, question of existence and validity can be adjudicated by an Arbitral Tribunal appointed by this Court. He further states the arbitral proceedings which are presently underway before the named Arbitrator are being contested under Section 13 of the Act.
4. Mr. B.B. Gupta, Senior Counsel for the Respondent, while refuting the allegations made in the petition, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, on instructions, submits that in order to resolve the controversy, he does not oppose the prayer made in the Petition, to the extent of appointment of an independent Sole Arbitrator by this Court.
5. Mr. Gupta fairly submits that if the Petitioner has any objection regarding existence of the arbitration agreement, the same can be urged under Section 16 of the Act before the Arbitral Tribunal.
6. In view of the foregoing, since there is consensus between the parties, the mandate of the learned Arbitrator, (Retd.) Justice Rajesh Tandon, stands terminated by consent.
7. The present petition is allowed and accordingly, Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sistani (Retd.), former Judge of this Court, [Contact No.: +91 9871300034] is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes that have arisen in relation to the Letter of Intent dated 02nd July, 2021.
8. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Arbitrator as and when notified. This is subject to the learned Arbitrator making the necessary disclosures under Section 12(1) of the Act and not being ineligible under Section 12(5) of the Act.
9. The learned Arbitrator appointed by the Court shall fix his fee in Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed ARB.P. 1075/2021 Page 2 of 3 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:06.12.2021 11:24 consultation with counsel for the parties.
10. It is clarified that Court has not examined any of the claims of the parties and all the rights and contentions on merits are left open. Both the parties shall be free to raise their claims/ counter claims before the learned Arbitrator, in accordance with the law.
11. Mr. Singh states that the fee of the erstwhile Arbitrator shall be settled within a period of two weeks from today.
12. There are certain interim directions passed by the erstwhile Arbitrator vide Order dated 20th September, 2021 that are in force. Mr. Gupta states that application for interim measures would now be filed before the learned Arbitrator appointed by the Court. Mr. Singh states that till such time the Arbitrator enters upon reference and decides the application under Section 17 of the Act, the Petitioner would maintain the status quo as per the afore-noted interim Order. In case application under Section 17 is not filed within the four weeks from today, Petitioner would not remain bound by the statement noted above.
13. The termination of the mandate of the Arbitrator, recorded above does not reflect any opinion of the court on the competence or impartiality of the learned erstwhile Arbitrator.
14. Accordingly, the present petition along with pending applications are disposed of.
SANJEEV NARULA, J DECEMBER 2, 2021/hd Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed ARB.P. 1075/2021 Page 3 of 3 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:06.12.2021 11:24