Delhi High Court - Orders
Payu Payments Private Limited vs M/S Prajna Insuretech Private Limited on 13 September, 2023
Author: Yogesh Khanna
Bench: Yogesh Khanna
$~6 & 7 (common order)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ARB.P. 439/2023, I.A.7420/2023
+ ARB.P. 442/2023, I.A.7426/2023
PAYU PAYMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Anand Shankar Jha, Mr.Sachin
M., Mr.Abhilekh Tiwari, Advocates.
versus
M/S PRAJNA INSURETECH PRIVATE LIMITED
..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Shradha Agrawal, Ms.Neelam
Deol, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
ORDER
% 13.09.2023
1. Both these petitions are filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. In ARB.P.439/2023 the relevant clause is 24.3, as under:
"24.3 Governing Law, Settlement of Disputes and Jurisdiction: This Agreement (and any dispute or claim relating to it, its enforceability or its termination) is to be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of India. Each of the Parties agrees that, if any dispute(s) or difference(s) shall arise between the Parties in connection with or arising out of this Agreement, the Parties shall attempt, for a period of 30 (thirty) days from the receipt of a notice from the other Party of the existence of a dispute(s), to settle such dispute(s) by mutual discussions between the Parties. If the said dispute(s) cannot be settled by mutual discussions within the thirty day period provided above, either Party may refer the matter to a sole arbitrator to be mutually appointed in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitration proceedings shall be held under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitration proceedings shall be held in English language at New Delhi. The courts at New Delhi shall have the exclusive jurisdiction over any disputes relating to the subject matter of this Agreement."
2. In ARB.P.442/2023 the relevant clause is 25.2 which is exactly the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 18:54:33 same as clause 24.3 (supra). The learned counsel for the respondent appears and has taken an objection that the abovesaid clauses give a choice to one of the parties to move out of arbitration. She referred to the words either Party may refer the matter to a sole arbitrator to be mutually appointed in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner clauses 24.3 and 25.2 gives an option to one of the parties not to opt for arbitration and to move out of arbitration. I does not agree with her submissions. The exact interpretation of these clauses is any of the parties may refer the matter to arbitration and in case the arbitrator is appointed, he shall be appointed with the consent of both the parties.
4. In the circumstances, Ms.Ina Malhotra, Former District Judge (Mobile No.9910384651) is hereby appointed as an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The rights and contentions of the parties are left open. The fee of the learned arbitrator shall be fixed as per IVth Schedule contained in Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
5. The petition(s) stand disposed of along with pending application(s).
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
SEPTEMBER 13, 2023 DU This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 18:54:33