Delhi High Court - Orders
Alphatech Projects (India) Private ... vs M/S. Jmd Limited on 19 March, 2020
Author: Jyoti Singh
Bench: Jyoti Singh
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 21/2020
ALPHATECH PROJECTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Mr. Amit
Choudhary, Mr. Aman Dhyani & Ms.
Kanchan Semwal, Advocates
versus
M/S. JMD LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
ORDER
% 19.03.2020 I.A. 3643/2020 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.
O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 21/2020 & I.A. 3644/2020 Issue notice to the Respondent, on the petitioner taking steps through all permissible modes, returnable on 4th May, 2020.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that pursuant to the disputes having arisen between the parties, the Petitioner had invoked the Arbitration Clause, which reads as under:
''All matters in dispute between the parties arising out these presents shall be referred to the arbitration by a mutually appointed arbitrator,: or a panel of three arbitrators in case the parties agree upon the same; but in default of such agreement, the reference shall be made to the arbitration of two arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party and the two appointed arbitrators shall appoint the third arbitrator, who shall act as the presiding arbitrator."
However, to the surprise of the Petitioner, Respondent No. 1, vide letter dated 19.11.2019, illegally appointed a Sole Arbitrator, unilaterally, for adjudicating the disputes between the parties. Immediately, on receipt of the said letter from Respondent No. 1, the Petitioner vide its letter dated 09.12.2019 pointed out that the unilateral and illegal appointment of the Sole Arbitrator was in the teeth of various judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
Learned counsel further points out that despite receiving the aforesaid letter, the Arbitrator issued a declaration on 24.12.2019, whereby he has accepted his appointment. The Petitioner again, vide letter dated 14.01.2020, pointed out that the appointment was per se illegal and against the judgments of the Court. However, the Arbitrator decided to proceed with the matter and again issued a letter dated 22.01.2020 asking the Petitioner to file its Statement of Claims.
Attention of the Court is drawn to the notice dated 03.03.2020 issued by the Arbitrator whereby a direction has been issued to the Petitioner to file his Statement of Defence along with the Counter Claim within a period of 21 days, failing which the Petitioner will be proceeded ex-parte. A copy of the said notice has also been appended to the petition.
Prima facie, I find merit in the contention of the Petitioner that unilateral appointment of the Sole Arbitrator is in the teeth of the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court and more particularly, a recent judgment in the case of Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. vs. HSCC (India) Ltd. 2019 SCC Online SC 1517.
In my view, therefore, the present arbitration proceedings deserve to be stayed.
Till the next date of hearing, the arbitration proceedings will remain stayed. The notice dated 03.03.2020 issued by the Arbitrator is also stayed till the next date of hearing.
A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Court Master.
JYOTI SINGH, J MARCH 19, 2020 rd/