Delhi High Court - Orders
Smaaash Leisure Ltd vs Ambience Commercial Developers Pvt. ... on 11 April, 2022
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~68
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 181/2022
SMAAASH LEISURE LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit George and Mr. Rishabh
Dheer, Advocates.
versus
AMBIENCE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.
..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal, Senior
Advocate with Ms. Kittu Bajaj and
Ms. Kajal, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 11.04.2022 I.A. 5637/2022 (seeking exemption from filing of original documents, fair and legible copies, certified copies of orders and the entire arbitral record)
1. Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Petitioner shall file legible and clearer copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules, before the next date of hearing.
3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
I.A. 5636/2022 (seeking summoning of the arbitral record)
4. Registry is directed to requisition the arbitral record.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:12.04.2022 11:22:125. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
O.M.P. (COMM) 181/2022
6. Issue notice. Ms. Kittu Bajaj, counsel for the Respondent, accepts notice.
7. Mr. Amit George, counsel for the Petitioner, argues that notwithstanding the several grounds raised in the petition, the award is liable to be set aside on the sole ground of being rendered by an Arbitral Tribunal unilaterally appointed by the Respondent. It is argued that the award is void ab initio as it has been rendered by an Arbitrator who was de jure incompetent to make an award, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC India Ltd., AIR 2020 SCC 59. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on an Order dated 23rd March, 2022 in OMP(COMM) 16/2020, whereby prima facie observations on a similar question have been made by a coordinate bench of this court.
8. Parties are directed to file a brief note of submissions, not exceeding five pages, along with relevant caselaw(s), 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 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in respect of each Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:12.04.2022 11:22:12 ground of challenge raised.
9. The Petitioner is also directed to file a gist of award, not exceeding five pages, within the aforementioned timelines.
10. Re-notify on 18th July, 2022.
I.A. No. 5635/2022 (for stay of the impugned arbitral award dated 23rd December, 2021
11. The issues raised in the petition would require consideration. However, at the same time, Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal, Senior Counsel for the Respondent, has drawn the attention of this Court to procedural order dated 9th November 2020 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, wherein it has been recorded as under:
"Ld. Counsel for parties state that claimant had a long Zoom meeting with promoters of respondent company on 03.11.2020 and parties had tried to resolve the matter. Mr. G.R Sachdeva AR of claimant has stated that on some of the issues respondent agreed in principle and some other issues are yet to be finalized. It is stated that by tomorrow i.e. by 10.11.2020 again the parties will talk to each other and there is likelihood of matter being settled.
Ld. Counsel for the respondent states that respondent is not pressing its objection about the appointment of sole arbitrator by the claimant. It is stated that objection of respondent in this regard be dismissed as not pressed.
In view of the above statement of Ld. Counsel for respondent, the objection of respondent about appointment of sole arbitrator by the claimant stands dismissed as not pressed."
12. On the basis of the above, Ms. Aggarwal argues that the plea of unilateral appointment urged by the Petitioner has no bearing and is completely irrelevant. Although, Dr. George contends that the afore-noted statement is an incorrect observation of the Tribunal and would, in any event, not bind the Petitioner, however in the opinion of the Court, at this stage, the Court only has to form an opinion as to what should be the conditions for Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:12.04.2022 11:22:12 grant of a stay.
13. Having regard to the provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, relating to stay of a money decree, subject to Petitioner depositing the Arbitral Award amount (principal plus up-to date interest) within six weeks from today, the execution of the impugned award shall remain stayed.
SANJEEV NARULA, J APRIL 11, 2022 as Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:12.04.2022 11:22:12