Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Apeejay Surrendra Park Hotels Limited vs Gurusukh Vintrade Services Pvt. Ltd on 19 December, 2022

Author: Prateek Jalan

Bench: Prateek Jalan

                          $~54
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                          +      ARB.P. 1449/2022

                                 APEEJAY SURRENDRA
                                 PARK HOTELS LIMITED                                ..... Petitioner
                                              Through:           Mr. Nitish K. Sharma, Advocate
                                                                 (Enrolment No. P/0766/2011,
                                                                 Mobile No. 9999098219).

                                                            versus

                                 GURUSUKH VINTRADE
                                 SERVICES PVT. LTD.                                   ..... Respondent
                                                Through:         None.

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

                                                  ORDER

% 19.12.2022 I.A. 21671/2022 (for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application stands disposed of.

1. By way of this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner seeks appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties under an agreement dated 26.09.2012 entitled "Management and Technical Services Agreement"

["the Agreement"].

2. The Agreement contains a dispute resolution clause [Clause 17], which provides for adjudication of disputes by an arbitral tribunal Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL ARB.P.1449/2022 Page 1 of 2 Signing Date:20.12.2022 12:19:18 consisting of one nominated arbitrator of each of the parties, and the third arbitrator to be appointed by the arbitrators so nominated. It is provided that the arbitral award would be made in New Delhi.

3. Disputes having arisen between the parties under the Agreement, the petitioner sought to invoke arbitration by a legal notice dated 05.10.2020, and nominated an arbitrator as its nominee to the arbitral tribunal. The said notice failed to elicit a response, and the respondent purportedly terminated the Agreement by a subsequent communication dated 27.10.2020, to which petitioner has replied through counsel on 30.10.2020.

4. As the respondent has not nominated its nominee arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause in the Agreement, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking appointment of the nominee arbitrator of the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that, subject to the consent of the respondent, the petitioner is also agreeable to the appointment of a sole arbitrator by this Court.

5. Issue notice. Notice may be served upon respondent by all permissible modes, including e-mail. Dasti service, in addition, is also permitted. Affidavit of service be filed within one week after service.

6. If the respondent wishes to resist the appointment of an arbitrator, it may file a reply to the petition within three weeks after service, positively

7. List on 03.03.2023.

PRATEEK JALAN, J DECEMBER 19, 2022/'vp'/ Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL ARB.P.1449/2022 Page 2 of 2 Signing Date:20.12.2022 12:19:18