Delhi High Court - Orders
Spectraforce Technologies Inc vs Vidya Prakash Pathak & Ors on 22 May, 2025
Author: Jasmeet Singh
Bench: Jasmeet Singh
$~92
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 42/2025
SPECTRAFORCE TECHNOLOGIES INC
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Suhail Sehgal, Mr. Prashant
Drolia, Advs.
versus
VIDYA PRAKASH PATHAK & ORS.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sameer Oberoi, Ms. Manya
Kumar, Mr. Rishbah Tyagi, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 22.05.2025 I.A. 13080/2025
1. Exemption is granted subject to all just exceptions.
2. The applicant(s) shall file legible and clearer copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules before the next date of hearing.
3. The application is disposed of.
O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 42/2025
1. This is a petition filed under section 14 (1) read with section 14(2) and 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking termination of the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator, i.e. respondent No. 1.
2. In the present case, the petitioner and respondent No. 3 have never This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/06/2025 at 18:05:20 entered into an arbitration agreement and the respondent No. 3 filed a complaint against the petitioner with respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 claims to have a deemed arbitration clause and policy and has an implied contract with the petitioner.
3. Based on the deemed arbitration clause and the policy, respondent No. 2 appointed respondent No. 1 unilaterally for adjudication of the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 initiated the arbitration process.
4. It is stated by Mr. Sehgal, learned counsel for the petitioner that despite repeated requests of the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 has not given any declaration as provided under section 12 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Additionally, there is no notice under section 21 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 served upon the petitioner which is a sine qua non for initiation for arbitration proceedings.
5. I am of the view that the matter needs consideration.
6. Issue notice to the respondents on the petitioner taking steps through all modes including electronic, returnable on 05.08.2025.
7. Mr. Oberoi, learned counsel appears for respondent No. 3 and accepts notice and shall file a reply within 4 weeks from today.
I.A. 13079/20258. This is an application filed under section 151 of CPC, 1908 seeking stay of the arbitral proceedings pending before the Sole Arbitrator i.e. respondent No. 1.
9. A perusal of the facts noted above shows that the Arbitrator has been unilaterally appointed by the respondent No. 2. Additionally, a copy of the declaration under section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/06/2025 at 18:05:20 Act, 1996 has not been provided to the petitioner.
10. The notice under section 21 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 also seems to have not been issued in the present case.
11. The petitioner has a prima facie case. In case the arbitration proceedings are permitted to be continued, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money.
12. For the said reasons, till the next date of hearing, arbitration proceedings pending before the respondent No. 1 in the case titled as "Pluxee International vs. Spectraforce Technologies" shall remain stayed.
13. List on 05.08.2025.
JASMEET SINGH, J MAY 22, 2025/sp Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/06/2025 at 18:05:20