Delhi High Court - Orders
Prime Interglobe Private Limited vs Super Milk Products Private Limited on 30 November, 2022
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ARB.P. 608/2022 & I.A. 11713/2022
PRIME INTERGLOBE PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sameer Jain, Mr. Suvigya
Awasthy, Mr. Vivek Joshi & Mr.
Rohan Gulati, Advocates.
versus
SUPER MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashish Dholakia, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Aseem
Chaturvedi & Mr. Shivank Diddi,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 30.11.2022
1. By the order dated 14.10.2022, this Court had recorded as follows:-
"4. As far as merits of the matter is concerned, the petitioner seeks appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate its claims under the contract dated 03.10.2016 entitled "Master Franchise Agreement". The principal ground taken by the respondent to resist appointment of an arbitrator is that the petitioner has failed to file its counter claims in the ongoing arbitration proceedings, and his obligation to do so has been rejected by the leamed Arbitrator vide an order dated 14.03.2022.
5. I am prima facie of the view that, the said order rejecting the petitioner's request to file counter claims on the ground that the request was belated, does not foreclose the petitioner's right to raise its claims in independent proceedings. In any event, it has been put to leamed counsel for the respondent that an arbitrator may be appointed leaving all legal defences as to the maintainability, and the merits of the petitioner's claims, open for adjudication in the arbitration proceedings. Mr. Chaturvedi will take instructions on this aspect also."
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:01.12.2022 13:43:41 ARB.P. 608/2022 Page 1 of 22. Mr. Ashish Dholakia, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, today raises a new submission on the question of maintainability of the present petition. It is his contention that the petition, under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ["the Act"], is itself not maintainable because the disputes between the parties under a Master Franchise Agreement dated 03.10.2016 were already referred to arbitration in earlier proceedings under Section 11 of the Act filed by the respondent herein in ARB. P. 474/2019. He draws my attention to the order dated 26.07.2019 passed therein.
3. To my mind, the determination of this issue requires a consideration of the petition filed by the respondent therein, on which the aforesaid order dated 26.07.2019 was passed. The respondent is directed to place the said petition on record within one week. I am informed that no reply was filed by the petitioner herein to the said petition. The respondent may also file any other additional documents, upon which they wish to rely, with the same period.
4. Mr. Dholakia states that the petitioner herein has sought adjournment of the ongoing arbitral proceedings, in which the claims of the respondent herein are being adjudicated, on the ground of pendency of the present petition. It is made clear that the pendency of the present petition will not come in the way of the proceedings in the ongoing arbitral proceedings.
5. List on 21.12.2022.
PRATEEK JALAN, J NOVEMBER 30, 2022/'pv'/ Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:01.12.2022 13:43:41 ARB.P. 608/2022 Page 2 of 2