Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Uno Minda Limited vs Westport Fuel System Italia S R L on 14 November, 2022

Author: Anup Jairam Bhambhani

Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani

                          $~42
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +    O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 320/2022 & I.A.18339/2022
                               UNO MINDA LIMITED                           ..... Petitioner
                                              Through: Mr. Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate
                                                          with Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior
                                                          Advocate, Mr. Darpan Wadhwa,
                                                          Senior Advocate, Mr. Ankur Chawla,
                                                          Advocate,    Mr.     Samir      Malik,
                                                          Advocate,    Mr.     Mahip      Singh,
                                                          Advocate,    Ms.      Kalyani     Lal,
                                                          Advocate, Mr. Saket Sikri, Advocate,
                                                          Mr. Akshay Ringe, Advocate and Mr.
                                                          Varun Kalia, Advocate.
                                              versus
                               WESTPORT FUEL SYSTEM ITALIA S R L           ..... Respondent
                                              Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior
                                                          Advocate with Ms. Kaadambari,
                                                          Advocate.
                               CORAM:
                               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
                                              ORDER

% 14.11.2022 I.A. No.18339/2022 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week. Application stands disposed of.

O.M.P. (I)(COMM) 320/2022 By way of the present petition under section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 ('A&C Act'), the petitioner seeks interim measures of relief in relation to Deadlock Notice dated 11.10.2022 issued by the respondent, arising from and in the context of Joint Venture Agreement dated 24.09.2009 between the parties.

2. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of the court to clause 17 of the Joint Venture Agreement, which contemplates the issuance of a 'deadlock notice' by either of the parties and provides a detailed mechanism to be followed for resolution of such deadlock. Mr. Sibal also points-out clause 29.5, which is part of the dispute resolution process agreed to between the parties, which also comprises the arbitration agreement between them. Learned senior counsel submits, that according to the petitioner there is in fact no deadlock in the context of the ongoing business relationship between the parties spanning the last about 13 years; and in any case, premised upon the transactions and correspondence exchanged between the parties, in relation to certain issues that have arisen between them, the petitioner has issued to the respondent notice dated 21.10.2022 invoking the dispute resolution mechanism, which included arbitration.

3. Upon a prima facie conspectus of the averments contained in the petition and the submissions made, issue notice.

4. Ms. Kaadambari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on advance copy, accepts notice; and seeks time to file reply.

5. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the genesis of the deadlock notice are defaults committed by the petitioner. Mr. Nandrajog also submits that the petitioner is guilty of concealment of material documents and facts in the present petition.

6. Let reply be filed within 03 weeks; rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing; with copies to the opposing counsel.

7. It is evident from the record that the Joint Venture Agreement between the parties has been in existence for the last almost 13 years and continues to be in-force till date; and clause 17 under which the deadlock notice has been issued by the respondent on 11.10.2022 itself contemplates a period of 60 'business days' for resolution of a 'deadlock', with a further period of 20 days for holding a 'bid meeting' as part of the deadlock resolution process.

8. Other things apart, considering that even the 60-day period for resolution of a deadlock as aforesaid, is yet to run-out, it is directed that the respondent shall not take any precipitate action pursuant to deadlock notice dated 11.10.2022, till the next date of hearing.

9. Furthermore, as requested on behalf of the respondent and agreed to by the petitioner, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the present matter, the Chairmen of the petitioner and the respondent shall meet, at a time and place of their mutual convenience, to be co-ordinated by counsel, before the next date of hearing.

10. Re-notify for further consideration on 07th December 2022.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J NOVEMBER 14, 2022 Ne Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEERAJ Signing Date:17.11.2022 OMP (I)(COMM) 320/2022 Page 3 of 3 12:36:56