Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Supratik Infra Ventures Pvt Ltd vs Shri Chandrashekhar Pandurang Tumsare ... on 29 March, 2022
Author: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
$~A-5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ARB.P. 777/2020 & I.A. 12291/2020
M/S SUPRATIK INFRA VENTURES PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Kari Singh, Mr. Nilesh &
Mr. Hrishikesh, Advocates.
versus
SHRI CHANDRASHEKHAR PANDURANG TUMSARE & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anshuman Ashok, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
ORDER
% 29.03.2022 By way of the present petition under section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996, the petitioner M/s Supratik Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd. seeks appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes that are stated to have arisen with the respondents from Development Rights Agreement dated 12.10.2010.
2. The petition is premised on clause 16.15.2 of the Development Rights Agreement which recites as under:
"16.15 Arbitration 16.15.1 ****** 16.15.2- In case of such failure, the dispute shall be referred to a sole Arbitrator, who shall be appointed by the Developer. The Arbitration proceedings shall be governed by the (Indian) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and shall be held in New Delhi, India. The language of arbitration shall be English. The arbitration award shall be final and binding on the Parties, and the Parties agree to be bound thereby and to act accordingly."Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNITA RAWAT Signing Date:05.04.2022 ARB.P. 777/2020 Page 1 of 4 11:05:26
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further draws attention to clause 16.14 which reads as follows:
"16.14 Governing Law and Courts This Agreement shall in all respects be governed and interpreted by, and construed In accordance with the laws of India and courts situated at New Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the disputes arising out of this Agreement."
4. As recorded in order dated 28.01.2021, at the pre-notice stage, all three respondents had entered appearance on advance copy; and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 had expressed that they had no objection to the appointment of an arbitrator as prayed for by the petitioner.
5. Mr. Anshuman Ashok, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that his only objection to the appointment of an arbitrator is that the petitioner company, M/s Supratik Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd. is not a signatory to the Development Rights Agreement and therefore to the arbitration clause, since the said agreement was signed by M/s Supratik Estate Pvt. Ltd. and not by M/s Supratik Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has handed-up a copy of a Fresh Certificate of Incorporation Consequent Upon Change of Name dated 20.02.2012 issued by the concerned Registrar of Companies, which records that M/s Supratik Estate Pvt. Ltd. has changed its name to M/s Supratik Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Let a copy of the certificate be placed on record. The Development Rights Agreement itself records that Supratik Estate Pvt. Ltd, referred to therein as 'developer', unless Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNITA RAWAT Signing Date:05.04.2022 ARB.P. 777/2020 Page 2 of 4 11:05:26 the context otherwise specifies, shall mean and include its successors and permitted assigns.
7. Clearly therefore, M/s Supratik Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd. is the same corporate entity as M/s Supratik Estate Pvt. Ltd., except that the latter has now changed its name to M/s Supratik Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd. In fact the Development Rights Agreement expressly contemplated that even a successor entity of the 'developer' would be included within its definition. The present is a case, not even of a successor-in- interest, but the same company having changed its name.
8. Upon perusal of the certificate evidencing change of name of the petitioner company, Mr. Ashok, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, fairly states that in view thereof he has no objection to the appointment of an arbitrator.
9. It is also noticed that vidé lawyer's notice dated 03.11.2020, the petitioner had raised certain disputes with the respondent arising from the Development Rights Agreement, and had sought appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate such disputes; which notice was responded to by respondent No. 1 vidé lawyer's reply dated 04.112020, which therefore shows the existence of disputes between the parties which are amenable to arbitration under the arbitration clause signed by the parties.
10. At this stage, parties jointly request that arbitration may be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, New Delhi.
11. Accordingly, as requested jointly by the parties, the disputes between them arising from Development Rights Agreement dated 12.10.2010 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNITA RAWAT Signing Date:05.04.2022 ARB.P. 777/2020 Page 3 of 4 11:05:26 are referred to arbitration under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, with a request to the Director, DIAC to propose a name and appoint a learned Sole Arbitrator in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Centre; subject to arbitrator's fees, expenses and other terms and conditions as applicable under such rules and regulations; and subject to the learned Sole Arbitrator so proposed by the DIAC furnishing requisite disclosures as required under section 12 of the A&C Act to the DIAC.
12. The matter be placed before court for disposal, upon confirmation that the process of appointment of Sole Arbitrator has been completed by the DIAC.
13. A copy of this order be sent to the Director, DIAC for information and compliance.
14. List on 18th April 2022.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
MARCH 29, 2022/uj Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNITA RAWAT Signing Date:05.04.2022 ARB.P. 777/2020 Page 4 of 4 11:05:26