Delhi High Court - Orders
Shyam Kumar Shrivastava vs M/S Fiitjee Ltd & Anr on 3 August, 2022
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 10/2020
SHYAM KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Kushagra Bansal, Advocate.
versus
M/S FIITJEE LTD & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Revati Gualti, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 03.08.2022
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 14 read with Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "A&C Act, 1996") on behalf of the petitioner seeking termination of the mandate of erstwhile Arbitrator appointed by the respondents and substitution of the Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes.
2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner, who has vast experience, is imparting specialised education to students preparing for competitive examination, was appointed by the respondents on the Post of Associate Professor A-2 vide Letter dated 12th June, 2016 on probation in Chemistry Department from 15th September, 2016. The petitioner was confirmed as regular employee on 16th March, 2017. The petitioner was promoted to the Post of Associate Professor A-3 on 08th June, 2017 and the fixed salary of the petitioner was increased to Rs. 26,07,606/- per annum w.e.f. 01st April, Signature Not Verified Signed By:NIRMLA TIWARI Signing Date:06.08.2022 12:34:45 2017.
3. The respondents vide E-mail dated 02nd June, 2018 informed the Centre Heads about the deferment of the salary of employees of the month of May, 2018. Differences arose between the parties and the respondents issued Suspension-cum-Show-Cause Notice dated 07th June, 2018 in total disregard to the Service Manual. The petitioner responded vide E-mail dated 12th June, 2018 and objected to the Show-cause Notice issued by the respondents. The service of the petitioner was terminated vide Letter dated 15th June, 2018.
4. The petitioner vide Letter dated 04th September, 2018 invoked Arbitration in terms of the Clause No. 38(a) of Service Rules for the Employees dated 12th May, 2016. The petitioner filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 bearing Petition No. ARB.P. 909/2018, which was disposed of vide Order dated 09th January, 2019 with the direction to the respondents to act as per the provisions of the Service Manual dated 29th March, 2017 and to appoint the Sole Arbitrator. The respondent no. 1 appointed Shri Rajesh Chaurasia, Advocate, Delhi High Court as the Sole Arbitrator, before him the statement of claim was filed on 20th March, 2019 before him. The Statement of Defence was filed on 09th May, 2019. However, the conduct of the learned Sole Arbitrator was not satisfactory as he gave undue indulgence to the respondents while imposing cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the petitioner for reinstating the claim of the claimant.
5. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the Sole Arbitrator, the petitioner filed an application dated 30th August, 2019 for waiver of the cost but the same was dismissed by the Sole Arbitrator and directed the petitioner to Signature Not Verified Signed By:NIRMLA TIWARI Signing Date:06.08.2022 12:34:45 duly pay the cost of Rs. 20,000/-. Left with no alternative, the petitioner deposited the cost.
6. It is submitted that being aggrieved by the conduct of the Sole Arbitrator, the petitioner filed an application under Section 12(3) and 13 of the A&C Act, 1996 challenging the appointment of Sole Arbitrator but the same was dismissed by the Arbitrator vide Letter dated 27th November, 2019. The petitioner then filed an application under Section 12(4) of the A&C Act, 1996 for setting aside the appointment of the Sole Arbitrator but the said application was also dismissed by him vide Order dated 06th December, 2019. Left with no choice, the petitioner continued to participate in the arbitration proceedings. Issues were framed and the affidavit of evidence was filed by the respondents.
7. It is submitted in the petition that the respondents had appointed the Sole Arbitrator which is vitiated in terms of well settled law as enunciated by the Apex Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. Vs. HSCC (India) Ltd. (2020) 20 SCC 760.
8. The prayer has, therefore, been made that the mandate of the erstwhile Arbitrator appointed by the respondents be terminated and the Sole Arbitrator be appointed for adjudication of the disputes between the parties.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents has seriously controverted the allegations made against the learned Sole Arbitrator and submitted that these are completely unwarranted. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the Sole Arbitrator has himself resigned and the mandate of the previous Arbitrator stands terminated on account of the resignation of the Sole Arbitrator. It is submitted that there is no objection to the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator by the Court.
Signature Not Verified Signed By:NIRMLA TIWARI Signing Date:06.08.2022 12:34:4510. Submissions heard.
11. Considering the submission and the facts as detailed above, the petition is allowed and Mr. Gautam Narayan, Advocate, Mobile No. 9811411735 is hereby appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
12. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Sole Arbitrator as and when notified. This is subject to the Arbitrator making necessary disclosure(s) under Section 12(1) of the A&C Act, 1996 and not being ineligible under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act, 1996 under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court.
13. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J AUGUST 3, 2022 S.Sharma Signature Not Verified Signed By:NIRMLA TIWARI Signing Date:06.08.2022 12:34:45