Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Mr. Hua Seng Chew (Chairman Of Jai Radha ... vs Jai Radha Raman Education Society ... on 18 August, 2022

Author: Anup Jairam Bhambhani

Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani

                          $~40
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +    ARB. A. (COMM.) 53/2022 & I.A. 12886/2022(stay)
                               MR. HUA SENG CHEW (CHAIRMAN OF JAI RADHA RAMAN
                               EDUCATION SOCIETY)                          ..... Petitioner
                                              Through: Mr. Dhruv Dewan with Mr. Rishabh
                                                         Bhargava, Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Mr.
                                                         Dhruv Sethi and Mr. Prayuj Sharma,
                                                         Advocates.
                                              versus
                               JAI RADHA RAMAN EDUCATION SOCIETY (THROUGH ITS
                               CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDENT) & ORS.              ..... Respondents
                                              Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate
                                                         with Ms. Bani Diskhit, Mr. Uddhav
                                                         Khanna and Ms. Asavani Jain,
                                                         Advocates for R-1 and 2.
                                                         Ms. Vasudha Sharma with Ms. P.
                                                         Srikumar Iyer, Ms. Nikita Garg with
                                                         Mr. Aditya Rajagopal, Advocates for
                                                         R-3.
                               CORAM:
                               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
                                              ORDER

% 18.08.2022 I.A.12887/2022(exemption) Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions. Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week. Application stands disposed of.

ARB. A. (COMM.) 53/2022 By way of the present appeal under section 37(2)(b) of Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 ('A&C Act') the appellant impugns order dated 20.07.2022 made by the learned Sole Arbitrator Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNITA RAWAT Signing Date:24.08.2022 ARB. A. (COMM.) 53/2022 Page 1 of 3 11:04:26 on an application under section 17(1)(ii)(e) read with section 19 of the A&C Act.

2. By way of the impugned order, the learned Sole Arbitrator has permitted the President of the non-claimant society (respondent No.2 herein) to represent the society (respondent No.1 herein) with the aim and intent that the non-claimant, which is a charitable educational society, should not go un-represented and un-defended in the arbitral proceedings; and the claimant should not get the benefit of an ex- parte award.

3. As recorded in it, the order has been passed by way of an interim measure, since the learned Sole Arbitrator considered it to be 'just and convenient' under section 17(1)(ii)(e) of the A&C Act, especially since the President would have knowledge about the affairs of the society. Furthermore, the President has been permitted to represent the society only in the arbitral proceedings; and the learned Sole Arbitrator had made in clear that such permission is by way of an interim, temporary arrangement and is subject to any changes/modification that may be made subsequently.

4. Mr. Dhruv Dewan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who is Chairman of the non-claimant society submits that the order could not have been made at the instance of the President, since the President is not a 'party' to the proceedings, which it is contended, is a requirement under section 17 of the A&C Act; and therefore the President was not entitled to move the application in the first place.

5. Issue notice, returnable 05.12.2022.

6. Ms. Bani Diskhit, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2; and Ms. Vasudha Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, accept notice; and seek time to file a reply.

7. Let reply to the petition be filed within 06 weeks; rejoinder thereto, if any be filed within 04 weeks thereafter; with copies to the opposing counsel.

8. In the connected matter bearing ARB. A. (COMM.) No. 54/2022 also listed today, it has been brought to the notice of the court that the appellant in this arbitration appeal is also the Chairman of Raffles Education Corporation, a company incorporated in Singapore which is the holding company of Millennium Infradevelopers Ltd, viz. the claimant in the arbitral proceedings. It is submitted that there are certain issues between the Chairman and the President of the society, which is the reason why the Chairman is challenging the order made. It is further submitted that if the Chairman were permitted to represent the society/non-claimant, there would be a clear conflict of interest since the Chairman is interested in the financial affairs of the claimant, while also being the Chairman of the non-claimant.

9. In this view of the matter, this court is not inclined to stay the operation of the impugned order.

10. Re-notify on 05th December 2022.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J AUGUST 18, 2022 ds Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNITA RAWAT Signing Date:24.08.2022 ARB. A. (COMM.) 53/2022 Page 3 of 3 11:04:26