Delhi High Court - Orders
Saya Buildcon Consortium Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Dalmia Principal Strategies Llp on 21 April, 2023
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ARB.P. 562/2022 & I.A. 10306/2022
SAYA BUILDCON CONSORTIUM PVT. LTD. & ORS.
..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Pooja M. Saigal, Mr. Simrat
Singh Pasay and Ms. Tanya Pandey,
Advocates
versus
DALMIA PRINCIPAL STRATEGIES LLP ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Mr. Aseem
Chaturvedi, Ms. Wamika Trehan and
Ms. Raddhika Khanna, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
ORDER
% 21.04.2023
1. The instant petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed on behalf of petitioners seeking the following relief:-
"i. Appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate all the disputes between the Petitioners and the Respondent in terms of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended till date..."
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner no. 1 Company is engaged in the business of construction and development of real estate projects, petitioners no. 2 and 3 are promoters and directors of petitioner no. 1 and the respondent is a Limited Liability Partnership.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:26.04.2023 18:44:313. It is submitted that on 26th June 2019, the respondent had invested a sum of Rs. 49,00,00,000/- in the petitioner no. 1 Company and accordingly, a Securities Subscription Agreement (hereinafter "SSA") was entered into by the parties. The said SSA was extended by an Addendum Agreement dated 24th November 2020 extending the period of the Agreement by another 21 months, i.e. upto 31st March 2022.
4. It is submitted that during the subsistence of SSA, the respondent lured the petitioner no. 1 into entering into various transactions while assuring that the petitioners would be able to generate revenue which could be utilized to pay the respondent. It is submitted that it was only after the petitioner no. 1 entered into such transactions that it was found that respondent had given incomplete information to the petitioners, due to which the petitioners suffered financially. Therefore, the petitioner no. 1 terminated the transactions and the losses so suffered have been claimed by the petitioners from the respondent.
5. Thereafter, the respondent furnished a Demand Notice dated 8th March 2022 calling upon the petitioner no. 1 to pay the entire amount alleged to be due in accordance with the terms of the SSA and Buy- Addendum Agreement, within 7 days of the Notice. The petitioner no. 1 replied to the said Notice on 31st March 2022 stating therein that the delay in repayment and various losses suffered by the petitioners were attributable to the respondent. In the said reply, the petitioners also stated that in case the disputes were not resolved within 30 days of the reply, the same may be treated as the Notice invoking arbitration in terms of Clause 14.5 of the MoU.
6. It is submitted that the respondent failed to take any action and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:26.04.2023 18:44:31 resolve the disputes or even appoint an arbitrator. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court seeking the appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently opposed the averments made on behalf of the petitioners on the merits of the case and disputes, however, he fairly conceded that there are disputes between the parties for resolution of which an arbitrator may be appointed.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. Upon perusal of the record and hearing the submissions of the parties it is evident that there are disputes between the parties that are arising from the MoU executed between them and which are arbitral in nature. There exists an Arbitration Clause, i.e., Clause 14.5 under the SSA, which has been invoked by the petitioners by way of the reply dated 31st March 2022 to the Demand Notice issued by the respondent. Further, the parties are in consensus that an Arbitrator may be appointed by this Court for adjudication of the disputes between the parties.
10. Since all the requisites for appointment of an Arbitrator are being met and parties have also consented for the same, this Court is inclined to refer the disputes between the parties to a Sole Arbitrator. Accordingly, the following Order:-
ORDER
(i) Justice S.K. Agarwal, Former Judge, Delhi High Court is appointed as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties which have arisen between the parties;
(ii) The learned sole arbitrator, before entering the arbitration Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:26.04.2023 18:44:31 reference, shall ensure the compliance of Section 12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996;
(iii) The learned sole arbitrator shall be paid fees as prescribed under The Delhi International Arbitration Centre (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators Fees) Rules, 2018 as amended vide notification dated 15th November, 2022;
(iv) At the first instance, the parties shall appear before the learned sole arbitrator within 10 days from today on a date which may be mutually fixed by the learned sole arbitrator;
(v) All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.
11. A copy of the order be forwarded to the learned Sole Arbitrator on the following address:
Justice S.K. Agarwal, Former Judge, Delhi High Court A-62, Nizamuddin (East), New Delhi-110013 9818000270, +911124656722 [email protected]
12. With the aforesaid directions, the instant petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J APRIL 21, 2023 Dy/ms Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:26.04.2023 18:44:31