Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Margo Networks Pvt Ltd & Anr vs Railtel Corporation Of India Ltd on 31 March, 2022

Author: Anup Jairam Bhambhani

Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani

                          $~S-16
                          *     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +     ARB.P. 400/2022
                                MARGO NETWORKS PVT LTD & ANR.                   ..... Petitioners
                                                  Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocate
                                                           with Mr. Kunal Tandon, Mr. Kumar
                                                           Shashank Shekhar & Ms. Yamini
                                                           Mukherjee, Advocates.
                                                  versus
                                RAILTEL CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.              ..... Respondent
                                                  Through: Mr. Shambhu Sharan, Mr.Yamandeep
                                                           Kumar & Ms. Anuradha Arputham,
                                                           Advocates.
                                CORAM:
                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
                                            ORDER

% 31.03.2022 I.A. 4973/2022 (Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week. The application stands disposed of.

By way of the present petition under section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996, the petitioners M/s. Margo Networks Pvt. Ltd, seek appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of disputes that are stated to have arisen with the respondent from Letter of Award dated 14.01.2020 read with the General Conditions of Contract governing the transactions between the parties. The petition is premised on clause 3.37 and other related clauses, which provide for an arbitral mechanism for resolution of disputes between the parties.

2. Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that vidé demand-cum-invocation notice dated 10.01.2022, the petitioners raised their claims upon the respondent and also sought appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate such claims.

3. Learned senior counsel further points-out that vidé reply dated 09.02.2022, the respondent has raised issues in relation to the mechanism provided for appointment of an arbitrator.

4. Upon a conspectus of the above, it appears prima-facie that there is a valid and subsisting arbitration clause between the parties; and also that the petitioners have raised their disputes with the respondent, none of which prima-facie appear to be non-arbitrable.

5. Accordingly, issue notice on the petition.

6. Mr. Shambhu Sharan, learned counsel is present on behalf of the respondent on advance copy; accepts notice; and seeks time to file reply.

7. Let reply be filed within four (04) weeks; rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within three (03) weeks thereafter. Copies be exchanged with the opposing counsel.

8. List for consideration on 20th July 2022.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.

MARCH 31, 2022/uj Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNITA RAWAT Signing Date:02.04.2022 ARB.P. 400/2022 Page 2 of 2 17:01:14