Delhi High Court - Orders
M S Alankit Assignments Ltd Through Its ... vs Union Of India on 1 May, 2023
Author: Sachin Datta
Bench: Sachin Datta
$~41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ARB.P. 1231/2022
M S ALANKIT ASSIGNMENTS LTD THROUGH ITS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhishek Chauhan and Mr. Amit
P. Shahi, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC
for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
ORDER
% 01.05.2023 I.A. No. 8427/2023 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
I.A. No.8426/2023 (early hearing) This is an application, filed on behalf of the petitioner, seeking early hearing.
Issue notice.
Learned counsel, as aforesaid, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. He does not oppose the prayer sought in the application.
Having considered the averments made in the application and having heard learned counsel for the parties, the same is allowed and the present petition [ARB.P. 1231/2022] is taken up for hearing today itself.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RADHA BISHT Signing Date:03.05.2023 18:27:10The date already fixed i.e. 24.05.2023 stands cancelled.
ARB.P. 1231/20221. This is a petition under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the "A&C Act") seeking appointment a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
2. The disputes between the parties have arisen in context of work "for selection of service provider to establish and manage Pravasi Bhartiya Sahayata Kendra (PBSK) at Dubai and Sharjah" awarded to the petitioner by the respondent, through Community Affairs Wing, Embassy of India, Abu Dhabi, in terms of the Request for Proposal (RFP) Document dated Nil September, 2018, purportedly for three years.
3. The disputes relate to alleged losses (pending invoices, security deposit, expenses) suffered by the petitioner in aforesaid work on account of alleged illegal and arbitrary acts on part of the respondent, including issuance of letter dated 04.04.2019 by the respondent to the petitioner, whereby the respondent reduced the term of services to be provided by the petitioner from three years to one year.
4. Clause 15 of the RFP contains an Arbitration agreement as under:
"15. Settlement of Disputes and Arbitration- All disputes, differences and questions arising out of or in any way touching or concerning this agreement or subject matter thereof or the representative rights, duties or liability of the parties shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Ambassador or any person nominated by him/her. The arbitration shall be in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended up to date, by a sole arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be entitled to extend the time of arbitration proceedings with the consent of the parties. No part of the agreement shall be suspended on the ground of pending arbitration proceedings. The decision of the sole arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties. If the dispute could not be resolved, either of the party will have the option to issue termination notice. The period of the termination notice shall be three months. In case of any financial claim, either of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RADHA BISHT Signing Date:03.05.2023 18:27:10 party may resort to judicial process."
5. The petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit to bring out that this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. It is stated in the said affidavit that in earlier round of litigation between the same parties related to the aforesaid work and transaction, when the petitioner had filed Writ Petition [W.P.(C) 2662/2020], Letter Patent Appeal [LPA 366/2022] and Special Leave Petition [SLP(C) No.16321/2022], the respondent had contested the said petitions raising issue of alternative remedy and not of territorial jurisdiction of this court. It is also stated that both the petitioner and the respondent have their offices within the territorial jurisdiction of this court.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement between the parties.
7. Since the existence of the arbitration agreement is not in dispute, there is no impediment in appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
8. Accordingly, Mr. Justice (Retd.) Satish Agnihotri, Former Chief Justice, High Court of Sikkim (Mob. No.: 9498095770) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
9. It is agreed by respective counsel for the parties that the respondent would be entitled to urge preliminary objections as regards jurisdiction and/or arbitrability of the claims sought to be raised, before the learned Sole Arbitrator.
10. The learned Sole Arbitrator may proceed with the arbitration proceedings subject to furnishing to the parties requisite disclosures as required under section 12 of the A&C Act; and in the event there is any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RADHA BISHT Signing Date:03.05.2023 18:27:10 impediment to the appointment on that count, the parties are given liberty to file an appropriate application in this court.
11. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall be entitled to fee in accordance with Fourth Schedule to the A&C Act; or as may otherwise be agreed to between the parties and the learned Sole Arbitrator.
12. Parties shall share the arbitrator's fee and arbitral costs, equally.
13. All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the claims/counter-claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Arbitrator on their merits, in accordance with law.
14. Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of this court on the merits of the contentions of the parties.
15. The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
SACHIN DATTA, J MAY 01, 2023/ Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RADHA BISHT Signing Date:03.05.2023 18:27:10