Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Aditya Rai And Company vs Zomato Media Private Limited on 10 January, 2023
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ARB.P. 839/2022
M/S ADITYA RAI AND COMPANY ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Suneha Jain, Adv.
versus
ZOMATO MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Arjun Maheshwari, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
ORDER
% 10.01.2023
1. This petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') praying for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the "Restaurant Partner Enrolment Form ("Form") for Online Ordering Services" and the Addendum dated 23.05.2019 executed between the parties.
2. The Arbitration Agreement between the parties is contained in Clause 8 of the Addendum, which is reproduced hereinunder: -
"8. Governing Law and Dispute Resolution This addendum shall be governed by the laws of India, for the time being in force and the Courts of New Delhi shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to preside over the matters arising hereunder. Parties shall first endeavour to resolve their disputes amicably, within fifteen (15) days from the date on which the dispute was first notified. Failing which, the dispute shall be referred to arbitration. The arbitration proceedings shall be presided over by a sole Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Date:12.01.2023 14:32:09 arbitrator mutually appointed by the parties.
The arbitral proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in English. The seat of arbitration shall be New Delhi."
3. As disputes arose between the parties, the petitioner invoked the Arbitration Agreement vide notice dated 13.09.2021. Having failed to receive a response from the respondent, the petitioner earlier filed a petition under Section 11 of the Act, being ARB.P. 631/2022, however, as there was some defect in the same, the said petition was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to file a fresh petition, vide order dated 24.05.2022 of this Court.
4. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondent by this Court on 20.09.2022. In spite of an opportunity being granted, the respondent has not filed its reply. Today, again the learned counsel for the respondent sought further time to file a reply. As sufficient time has already been granted to the respondent to file its response to the petition, I decline this request.
5. At this stage the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the parties be referred to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (in short the 'DIAC') for conduct of the arbitration proceedings, leaving it open to the respondent to raise all its objections before the learned Arbitrator so appointed. This request is not opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, I appoint Mr.Siddhartha Shankar Ray, Advocate (Mobile: 9650580863) as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the abovementioned Enrolment Form and the Addendum dated 23.05.2019. The arbitration proceedings shall be held under the aegis of the DIAC. The parties shall be bound by the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Date:12.01.2023 14:32:09 DIAC Rules, including its Fee Schedule. All objections of the respondent shall remain open in such proceedings. The parties shall appear before the Coordinator, DIAC on 27.01.2023 at 2:00 PM.
7. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J JANUARY 10, 2023/rv Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Date:12.01.2023 14:32:09