Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Oravel Stays Pvt. Ltd vs Nikhil Bhalla on 1 November, 2023
Author: Manmohan
Bench: Manmohan
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO (COMM) 212/2023
M/S ORAVEL STAYS PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Nikhilesh Ramachandran with
Mr.Sagar Kumar Pradhan,
Mr.Diptiman Acharya, Mr.Shubham
Seth and Mr.Anuj Panwar,
Advocates.
versus
NIKHIL BHALLA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Dhruva Bhagat, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
ORDER
% 01.11.2023 C.M.No.54230/2023
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. FAO (COMM) 212/2023 & C.M.No.54229/2023
3. Present appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') challenging impugned order dated 11th September, 2023 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-03), South in CS (COMM) 288/2020, whereby the application filed by the Appellant under Section 8 of the Act seeking reference of the dispute to arbitration in terms of the Marketing & Operational Consulting Agreement ('MOC Agreement') dated 28th November, 2018 was dismissed and it was held that the subject matter of 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 02/11/2023 at 23:27:39 dispute between the parties did not fall under the ambit/ scope of the dispute resolution clause, and thus the matter was not referable to arbitration, despite existence of a valid arbitration agreement.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the learned District Judge erred in interpreting the terms used in the arbitration clause and erroneously held that the matter could not be referred to arbitration since the dispute raised by the Respondent-Plaintiff in CS (COMM) 288/2020 was not with respect to the 'interpretation', 'construction', or 'application' of the clauses of the MOC Agreement, but rather it was a dispute with respect to the alleged non-compliance of the terms of the MOC Agreement.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the learned District Judge failed to consider the fact that any dispute with respect to the alleged compliance or non-compliance of any provision of the MOC Agreement would mean and include a dispute with respect to usage or performance of any term of the MOC Agreement.
6. He further relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Babanrao Rajaram Pund vs. Samarth Builders and Developers & Ors., (2022) 9 SCC 691, wherein it has been held that "It can be gleaned from other parts of the arbitration agreement that the intention of the parties was surely to refer the disputes to arbitration. In the absence of specific exclusion of any of the attributes of an arbitration agreement, the respondents' plea of non-existence of a valid arbitration clause, is seemingly an afterthought."
7. Issue notice. Mr.Dhruva Bhagat, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent. He states that the Respondent intends to file a cross- appeal against the impugned order.
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 02/11/2023 at 23:27:39
8. At request, adjourned to 11th January, 2024.
9. Till further orders, the proceedings before the Trial Court are stayed.
MANMOHAN, J MINI PUSHKARNA, J NOVEMBER 1, 2023 KA 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 02/11/2023 at 23:27:40