Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Shri Ram Solvent Extractions Pvt Ltd vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 3 March, 2023
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ARB.P. 1384/2022
M/S SHRI RAM SOLVENT EXTRACTIONS
PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anchit Sripat, Mr. Ajeyo
Sharma and Mr. Sidharth Mahajan,
Advocates
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 03.03.2023
1. By way of this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ["the Act"], the petitioner seeks appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising between the parties under a Memorandum of Understanding dated 24.12.2018 ["MOU"]. The MOU contains a dispute resolution clause which provides for settlement of disputes by arbitration [page 9 of petitioner's list of documents]. National Capital Territory of Delhi has been designated as the venue of arbitration and courts of Delhi have also been vested with jurisdiction over the MOU.
2. The petitioner contends that, disputes having arisen between the parties with regard to unpaid invoices and return of a bank guarantee Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:04.03.2023 12:55:53 ARB.P. 1384/2022 Page 1 of 3 furnished by the petitioner, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by a notice dated 28.09.2022. Mr. Anchit Sripat, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the said notice failed to elicit a response.
3. Notice was issued on 07.12.2022, when Mr. Pramod Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, accepted notice.
4. Pleadings have been completed in the petition.
5. The reply filed by the respondent is not on record. A copy has been handed over in Court and the same is taken on record.
6. The only ground pressed by Mr. Kumar to resist the appointment of an arbitrator is that the arbitration clause provided for nomination of an arbitrator by the Secretary-cum-Commissioner (Development), Development Department, Government of NCT of Delhi. It may first be noted that this ground has not been taken in the reply at all. In any event, Mr. Kumar accepts that the judgments of the Supreme Court in TRF Ltd. vs. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd. [(2017) 8 SCC 377] and Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. Vs. HSCC (India) Ltd. [(2020) 20 SCC 760] and various judgments following this line of authority do not permit unilateral appointment of an arbitrator.
7. In these circumstances, it is evident that there exists an arbitration clause between the parties and that disputes have arisen for which the arbitration clause has been duly invoked.
8. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition stands disposed of with the following directions:
a. The disputes between the parties under an MOU date 24.12.2018 are referred to the arbitration of Mr. Subhash Goyal, former Additional District Judge [Tel: - 8813888900].Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:04.03.2023 12:55:53 ARB.P. 1384/2022 Page 2 of 3
b. The arbitration will be held under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Shershah Road, New Delhi ["DIAC"].
c. The arbitration proceedings will be governed by Rules of DIAC, including as to remuneration of the learned Arbitrator. d. The learned Arbitrator is requested to make a declaration under Section 12 of the Act, prior to entering upon the reference.
9. It is also made clear that all rights and contentions of the parties, including with regard to maintainability, arbitrability of claims as well as on merits, are left open for consideration before the learned Arbitrator.
10. The petition stands disposed of in these terms of the aforesaid directions.
PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 3, 2023 "Bhupi"/ Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:04.03.2023 12:55:53 ARB.P. 1384/2022 Page 3 of 3