Delhi High Court - Orders
Gopal Krishan Jaggi vs Satish Jaggi on 7 March, 2022
Author: Mukta Gupta
Bench: Mukta Gupta
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ARB.P. 1243/2021
GOPAL KRISHAN JAGGI ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Bhaskar Jain, Adv.
versus
SATISH JAGGI ..... Respondent
Represented by:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 07.03.2022
1. Notice was issued to the respondent by this Court returnable for 8 th February, 2022 when none appeared on behalf of the respondent though as per learned counsel for the petitioner service through e-mail was affected. Thus, this Court directed the petitioner to file the affidavit of service.
2. An affidavit of service has been placed on record on behalf of the petitioner stating that notice has been served to the respondent through whatsapp and e-mail on 5th February, 2022 along with the complete paper book.
3. Despite service through e-mail and Whatsapp none appeared on behalf of the respondent on 8th February, 2022 and even today none appears on behalf of the respondent despite pass-over.
4. By this petition the petitioner seeks appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act) in terms of the collaboration agreement entered into with the Signature Not Verified Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA ARB.P. 1243/2021 Page 1 of 3 GUPTA Signing Date:10.03.2022 11:52:34 respondent dated 6th February, 2019 for raising construction from basement to third floor.
5. Relevant Clause 9 of the collaboration agreement dated 6th February, 2019 reads as under:
"9.In case any dispute or differences regarding the interpretation of this Annexure, agreement, rights, duties, obligations the same shall be referred to the arbitrator as mutually decided by both parties and the said arbitrator is to be appointed by common consent of both the parties and whose decision shall be final and binding."
6. The petitioner issued a notice invoking arbitration and settlement of disputes through Shri Navin Kumar Jaggi as the sole arbitrator and in case the respondent had any objection in the said event Shri Sunil Kumar, Advocate could be appointed as an arbitrator. Though the respondent accepted the same vide letter dated 31st August, 2020 but vide the subsequent letter dated 14th September, 2020 raised objections.
7. Thereafter, the petitioner opted for a pre-institution mediation before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 12th April, 2021 which did not result in a settlement.
8. In terms of Clause 9 of the collaboration agreement dated 6th February, 2019, Justice V.K. Jain, a former Judge of this Court is requested to arbitrate the disputes between the parties. Learned Arbitrator will submit a declaration under Section 12(2) of the Act within one week of entering appearance. The fee payable to the learned Arbitrator will be in terms of the IV Schedule to the Act.
9. Right of the respondent to file counter-claim, before the learned Arbitrator in accordance with law, shall stand reserved.
Signature Not Verified Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA ARB.P. 1243/2021 Page 2 of 3 GUPTA Signing Date:10.03.2022 11:52:3410. After this Court had dictated the order, Mr. Akash Mehta, Advocate enters appearance on behalf of the respondent. It may be noted that Mr.Akash Mehta had logged in through Video Conferencing and only after this Court had dictated the order, he intervened. No vakalatnama has been filed by Mr.Akash Mehta.
11. Petition is disposed of.
12. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
MARCH 07, 2022 'ga' Signature Not Verified Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA ARB.P. 1243/2021 Page 3 of 3 GUPTA Signing Date:10.03.2022 11:52:34