Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Anita Bhatia vs Imperia Structure Ltd on 14 July, 2022

Author: Anup Jairam Bhambhani

Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani

                          $~6
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      ARB.P. 595/2020
                                 ANITA BHATIA                                           ..... Petitioner
                                                       Through:     Ms. Shashi Panwar, Advocate.

                                                       versus

                                 IMPERIA STRUCTURE LTD                                  ..... Respondent
                                                       Through:     Ms. Neha Gupta with Mr. Karan Jain,
                                                                    Advocates.
                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
                                                       ORDER

% 14.07.2022 By way of the present petition under section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ('A&C Act') the petitioner seeks appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes that are stated to have arisen with the respondent. The disputes arise essentially from delay in construction and handing-over of Unit No.B- 911 at 'Imperia Residency' at Plot No.44-45, Sector KP-V, Greater Noida, U.P.ad-measuring about 425 sq. ft. (super-area).

2. Notice in this matter was issued on 12.11.2020; whereupon the respondent entered appearance; but no reply has been filed till date.

3. Ms. Shashi Panwar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws attention to clause 14(a)and (c) contained in Memorandum of Understanding dated 18.05.2010,by which the petitioner had agreed to purchase a residential unit from the respondent, which provisions Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNITA RAWAT Signing Date:16.07.2022 ARB.P. 595/2020 Page 1 of 3 14:18:57 contain the arbitration agreement between the parties and contemplates reference of any dispute to a sole arbitrator to be nominated by the respondent, with arbitration to be carried-out in terms of the A&C Act at New Delhi; and also agree that courts of law in New Delhi alone shall have jurisdiction in relation to the MoU.

4. Ms. Panwar submits that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC vs. HSCC (India) Ltd. reported as (2020) 20 SCC 760, the respondent is ineligible to appoint an arbitrator and considering that the parties have agreed to the'venue' of arbitration being at New Delhi, this court has territorial jurisdiction to appoint a sole arbitrator.

5. Attention is also drawn to Demand-cum-Invocation Notice dated 03.07.2020, whereby the petitioner raised its claims upon the respondent and also invoked arbitration for adjudication of such claims. This notice was followed by a reminder dated 28.07.2020.

6. Although the respondent sent no response to the notices issued by the petitioner, Ms. Neha Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the respondent does not dispute the existence of an arbitration agreement nor the territorial jurisdiction of this court in relation to the present matter.

7. Counsel also jointly submit that the disputes between them be referred to arbitration under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, New Delhi ('DIAC').

8. Upon a conspectus of the averments contained in the petition and the submissions made as recorded above, this court is satisfied that there is a valid and subsisting arbitration agreement between the parties;

that this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present petition; and that none of the disputes raised by the petitioner appears to be ex-facie non-arbitrable.

9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.

10. As jointly requested, the parties are referred to arbitration under the aegis of the DIAC; with a direction to the Director, DIAC to appoint an appropriate arbitrator in the matter, in accordance with the rules and regulations of DIAC; and subject to taking from the arbitrator so nominated, requisite disclosures as required under section 12 of the A&C Act.

11. The parties shall be liable to share the arbitrator's fee and arbitral costs equally.

12. All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to their inter-se disputes are left open, to be decided by the learned Sole Arbitrator, in accordance with law.

13. The petition stands disposed of.

14. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.

JULY 14, 2022/uj Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNITA RAWAT Signing Date:16.07.2022 ARB.P. 595/2020 Page 3 of 3 14:18:57