Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Macart Equipment Pvt Ltd Through Its ... vs Fujifilm India Pvt Ltd Through Its ... on 5 January, 2021

Author: Vibhu Bakhru

Bench: Vibhu Bakhru

                         $~2
                         *     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                         +     ARB.P. 3/2021
                               MACART EQUIPMENT PVT LTD
                               THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MR ATUL
                               CHAINSUKH GANDHI                     ..... Petitioner
                                            Through: Mr Arunava Mukherjee, Advocate.

                                                   versus

                               FUJIFILM INDIA PVT LTD THROUGH
                               ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR & ANR.              ..... Respondents
                                              Through: Mr Rohit Jain, Advocate.

                               CORAM:
                               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
                                       ORDER

% 05.01.2021 [Hearing held through videoconferencing] IA No.33/2021

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter „the Act‟), inter alia, praying that an Arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen in connection with a Purchase Agreement. The certified copy of the same is enclosed with the present petition. Clause 33 of the said agreement includes an arbitration clause, which reads as under:-

"a) In the event of any question, dispute or difference between the parties hereto arising out of or in Signature Not Verified digitally signed by:DUSHYANT RAWAL connection with this AGREEMENT, the parties hereto shall use their best efforts to settle such question, dispute or difference amicably. If not amicably settled, such question, dispute or difference shall be finally settled exclusively by arbitration and the arbitrator shall be appointed by party of the First Part and shall be held in Delhi, India, pursuant to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The party of the Second Part further confirm that it shall have no objection in the appointment of the Sole Arbitrator. The arbitration award shall be final, and the parties hereto agree to be bound thereby. Judgment upon the award rendered may be enforced in any court having jurisdiction thereof."

3. Admittedly, the said arbitration clause was invoked and the respondent has sought to appoint an Arbitrator.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the unilateral appointment is no longer permissible. The said contention is not contested by the learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for both the parties state on instructions that the parties are ready and willing to have the inter se disputes falling within the arbitration clause, resolved under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and in accordance with its Rules.

5. In view of the consensus between the parties, this court directs the DIAC to appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties that fall within the scope of Article 33 of the Purchase Agreement.

6. The parties are at liberty to approach the Coordinator, DIAC for further proceedings. In view of the consensus between the parties, the arbitration shall be conducted under the aegis of DIAC and in accordance Signature Not Verified digitally signed by:DUSHYANT RAWAL with its Rules.

7. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J JANUARY 5, 2021 MK Signature Not Verified digitally signed by:DUSHYANT RAWAL