Delhi High Court - Orders
Innovision Limited vs Orient Craft Ltd on 19 May, 2021
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~1 to 4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ARB.P. 368/2021
INNOVISION LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Chirag Jamwal, Advocate
versus
ORIENT CRAFT LTD ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Ankur Bansal, Advocate.
WITH
$~2
+ ARB.P. 369/2021
INNOVISION LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Chirag Jamwal, Advocate
versus
ORIENT CRAFT LTD ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Ankur Bansal, Advocate
WITH
$~3
+ ARB.P. 370/2021
INNOVISION LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Chirag Jamwal, Advocate
versus
ORIENT CRAFT LTD ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Ankur Bansal, Advocate
AND
$~4
+ ARB.P. 371/2021
Signature Not Verified
digitally signed
by:DUSHYANT
RAWAL
INNOVISION LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Chirag Jamwal, Advocate
versus
ORIENT CRAFT LTD ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Ankur Bansal, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 19.05.2021 [Hearing held through video conferencing]
1. The petitioner has filed the present petitions under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the A&C Act'), inter alia, praying that an arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen in relation to the Service Agreements entered into between the parties for various sites.
2. Mr Bansal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent states that insofar as execution of the Service Agreements are concerned, there is no dispute that the parties had entered into the said Service Agreements: Service Agreement dated 01.12.2019 (subject matter of ARB P. 368/2021); Service Agreement dated 23.12.2019 (subject matter of ARB. P. 369/2021); Service Agreement dated 08.09.2019 (subject matter of ARB. P. 370/2021); and Service Agreement dated 01.06.2019 (subject matter of ARB. P. 371/2021). Mr Bansal states that there is also no dispute as to the existence of the agreement between the parties to refer the disputes relating to the Service Agreements to arbitration as each of the said agreements includes an identically worded arbitration clause that reads as under:-
Signature Not Verified digitally signed by:DUSHYANT RAWAL"34. Settlement of Dispute and Jurisdiction
1.. Any claim, dispute, or controversy arising out, or in relation to, this Contract, the interpretation thereof, the activities performed hereunder, or the breach thereof, which cannot, within a period of 30 days, be satisfactorily resolved by mutual understanding between the parties, shall be finally settled through arbitration.
2. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by a sole arbitrator, who shall be mutually appointed by the parties, the venue of arbitration shall be New Delhi and the arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in the English language. The parties mutually agree that the arbitration award shall be final and biding on the parties.
3. The parties submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Delhi."
3. Since there is no dispute as to the existence of agreement to refer the disputes to arbitration and that the said agreement had been invoked by the respondent, this Court considers it apposite to allow the present petitions.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the parties state that since the claims are of a low value the arbitrator may be appointed under the rules Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and arbitration conducted under the aegis of DIAC and in accordance with its rules.
5. In view of the consensus between the parties, DIAC is directed to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising out of the Service Agreements (four in number). The arbitration shall be conducted under the Signature Not Verified digitally signed by:DUSHYANT RAWAL aegis of DIAC in accordance with its Rules.
6. It is clarified that there are four separate references as the disputes arise out of the four separate service agreements each of which contains an arbitration clause. However, a common arbitrator be appointed since the issues involved are common.
7. The parties are at liberty to approach the coordinator DIAC for further proceedings. The Registry is also directed to forward a copy of this order to DIAC.
8. The petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J MAY 19, 2021 ms/pkv Signature Not Verified digitally signed by:DUSHYANT RAWAL