Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Isc Projects Private Limited vs Steel Authority Of India Limited on 20 December, 2021
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 370/2021
M/S ISC PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Sameer Parekh,
Mr. E.R. Kumar, Ms. Rashi Gupta,
Mr. Raghav Bansal, Ms. Disha
Sachdeva and Mr. Rajat Sinah,
Advocates.
versus
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Priyanka Goswami and
Ms. Anusuya Sadhu Sinha,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 20.12.2021
[VIA HYBRID MODE]
I.A. 16926/2021 (for exemption from filing original/ certified copies of documents) and I.A. 16927/2021 (for exemption from filing clear copies of dim/ illegible annexures)
1. Exemption is granted, subject to just exceptions.
2. The Petitioner shall file better copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules, before the next date of hearing.
3. Accordingly, the applications are disposed of.
I.A. 17061/2021 (for stay under Section 36(2) & (3) of the Arbitration and Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAPNA SETHI O.M.P. (COMM) 370/2021 Page 1 of 3 Signing Date:23.12.2021 14:53:52 Conciliation Act)
4. Issue notice. Ms. Priyanka Goswami, counsel for the Respondent accepts notice.
5. List on 09th March, 2022.
O.M.P. (COMM) 370/2021
6. Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset points out that the impugned Award is ex-facie in conflict with Section 31(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in as much as it neither bears signatures of the third member comprising the Arbitral Tribunal nor states any reasons as to why the signatures of third member are not appearing on the Award.
7. Issue notice. Ms. Priyanka Goswami, counsel for the Respondent accepts notice. Ms. Goswami raises a preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Court by relying upon the Clause 46.2.4 of the General Conditions of Contract which provides that the exclusive jurisdiction shall vest at the "court at Durg India (with the exclusion of all other courts)".
8. Keeping the objection of the Respondent open, it must be noted that the Petitioner had earlier filed a petition under Section 34 of the Act before the Commercial Court at Raipur, Chhattisgarh. However, the said Court declined to entertain the petition observing that the jurisdiction would lie before this Court.
9. Parties are directed to file separate written submissions on the aspect of jurisdiction and merits of the case. The written submissions on the aspect of jurisdiction must not exceed three pages, along with relevant case laws, if Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAPNA SETHI O.M.P. (COMM) 370/2021 Page 2 of 3 Signing Date:23.12.2021 14:53:52 any, at least one week before the next date of hearing. Copy thereof also be sent to the Ld. Court Master via e-mail, within the same timeline. The written submissions on merits must not exceed five pages, along with relevant case laws, if any, at least one week before the next date of hearing. Copy thereof also be sent to the Ld. Court Master via e-mail, within the same timeline. The note should concisely indicate the following: (i) the exact dispute before the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal, (ii) the claims in respect of which the Petitioner is aggrieved, (iii) the decision as well as the reasoning of the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal, qua such claims, with reference to the relevant para and page numbers of the impugned award, and (iv) grounds as to why the decision of the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal merits/ does not merit interference, in view of Section 34 of the Act and the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in respect of each ground of challenge raised.
10. List on 09th March, 2022.
SANJEEV NARULA, J DECEMBER 20, 2021 nk Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAPNA SETHI O.M.P. (COMM) 370/2021 Page 3 of 3 Signing Date:23.12.2021 14:53:52