Delhi High Court - Orders
Sarvahitha Educational Society vs Educomp Solutions Limited & Anr on 16 December, 2021
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~18 (2021)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. 5/2018 & I.A. 8783/2018 & I.A. 8785/2018
SARVAHITHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ..... Petitioner
Through Mr Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate with
Mr M. Sowri Dev and Mr Sidharth Chopra,
Advocates.
versus
EDUCOMP SOLUTIONS LIMITED & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Ms Ranjana Roy Gawai, Mr Ujjawal
Jain, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 16.12.2021
1. Mr Kirti Uppal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, has assailed the impugned award, essentially, on three fronts. First, he submits that the arbitral award has been irregularly secured and it thus violates Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the A&C Act. He states that one of the disputes between the parties was regarding the evidence produced. However, the respondent has managed to secure the arbitral record from the Arbitrator without informing the petitioner, which was impermissible and therefore, at this stage, it is not feasible to determine with any certainty the evidence placed on record at the material time.
2. Second, he submits that the stamp paper on which the arbitral award is engrossed was purchased by the respondent prior to the date of the award but there were no orders or communication to do so. He submits that the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL value of the stamp paper is commensurate with the value of the award and therefore, the respondent was aware of the contents of the award prior to the same being made.
3. Third, he submits that there was no evidence on record to establish that the respondent had installed the hardware for fifty-two schools. He states that the installation certificates had been produced only in respect of thirty-three smart classes and therefore, the arbitral award is required to be set aside.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent seeks time to take instructions and respond to the said submissions.
5. At his request, list on 22.02.2022.
6. It is clarified that the enforcement of the award is not stayed as no such application has been filed. The pendency of the said proceedings will not preclude the respondent from enforcing the arbitral award.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J DECEMBER 16, 2021 pkv Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL