Delhi High Court - Orders
Manish Goel vs Delhi State Industrial And ... on 4 August, 2020
Author: Rekha Palli
Bench: Rekha Palli
Via video conferencing
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ARB.P 239/2020
MANISH GOEL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shresth Chaudhary, Adv.
versus
DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED .....Respondent.
Through: Ms. Anusuya Salwan, Ms. Nikita
Salwan, Mr. Abhishek Pundir, Mr. Bankim Garg
and Mr. Chaitanya Bansal, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 04.08.2020 I.A. 5688/2020 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
I.A. 5687/2020 (exemption)
2. The applicant will file the requisite affidavits and court fees within two weeks of the normal functioning of the Court being restored.
3. The applications are disposed of ARB.P 239/2020
4. This is a petition under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes which have arisen between the parties in relation to the agreement dated 19.01.2016.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, when the petitioner invoked arbitration in terms of Clause 25.1 of the agreement, the respondent failed to reply to the same. He submits that however, pursuant to the last order, the respondent invited the petitioner's authorised representative to attend a meeting at its office in order to explore the possibility of arriving upon an amicable settlement. Since they were unable to do so, he prays that an independent arbitrator be appointed by this Court.
6. Issue Notice. Ms. Salwan, Advocate accepts notice and does not dispute the fact that the agreement requires all disputes between the parties to be adjudicated through arbitration. She, however, submits that since the respondent is already maintaining a panel of Arbitrators, this Court may appoint an independent Arbitrator from the said panel. This request is vehemently opposed by the petitioner on account of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC Vs. HSCC (India) Ltd. 2019 SCC Online 1517. In my view, once the respondent has failed to respond to the petitioner's request for appointment of arbitrator, the petitioner is justified in praying for the appointment of an independent arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act.
7. Accordingly, in view of clause 25.1 of the Agreement dated 19.01.2016 which mandates that all disputes between the parties are required to be adjudicated by arbitration, the petition is allowed. Mr.Debajyoti Behuria, Advocate (Mobile No. 9810262804) is, with the consent of the parties, appointed as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes which have arisen between them in relation to the agreement dated 19.01.2016.
8. It is made clear that this Court has not considered the rival claims of the parties on merits and it will, therefore, be open for them to file claims/counter claims and raise all pleas permissible in law, before the learned Arbitrator, which will be decided in accordance with law.
9. Before commencing arbitration proceedings, the Arbitrator will ensure compliance of Section 12 of the Act.
10. The arbitration shall be conducted under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The fee of the learned arbitrator shall be determined in accordance with Schedule-IV of the Act.
11. A copy of this order be sent to Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) as also to the learned Arbitrator through electronic means.
12. The petition stands disposed of and the next date, i.e. 10.08.2020, stands cancelled.
REKHA PALLI, J.
AUGUST 04, 2020 'sdp'