Delhi District Court
Sunita Sachdeva vs . M2K Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Order Dt. ... on 5 March, 2022
Sunita Sachdeva Vs. M2K Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Order dt. 05.03.2022
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLNW01-002342-2021
OMP (T) (COMM) 1-21
Sunita Sachdeva,
W/o Sh. Ashok Sachdeva,
R/o A-1/2, Varun Apartments,
Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085.
....Petitioner
Versus
M2K Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Authorized Representative,
M2K Rohini, 16, Mangalam Place,
District Centra, Sector-3, Rohini,
Delhi-110085. .... Respondent
Date of institution : 10.03.2021
Date of arguments : 05.03.2022
Date of Order : 05.03.2022
JUDGEMENT:
1 The petitioner has filed the present petition u/s 14 & 15 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 r/w Sec. 151 CPC seeking termination of mandate of Ld. Sole Arbitrator.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the petition are that the petitioner is the owner of OMP (T) (COMM) 1-21 Page 1 of 3 Sunita Sachdeva Vs. M2K Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Order dt. 05.03.2022 the shop bearing No. 22, in Shopping-cum-Multiplex namely M2K, Rohini. The respondent is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013. The petitioner and the respondent entered into two agreements i.e. Shop Buyer Agreement and Maintenance Agreement coupled with an undertaking to abide by the terms and conditions of these agreements. The true copies of Shop Buyer Agreement, Maintenance Agreement and the undertaking are placed on record as Document-1, 2 & 3.
3. It is further averred in the petition that the aforesaid agreements contained an Arbitration clause which has been invoked by the respondent. It is further averred that Mr. Vipin Jain Director of Respondent company by way of letter dated 11.09.2020 addressed to Sh. Vageesh N. Sharma, Advocate/Sole Arbitrator, invoked arbitration proceedings under the aforementioned agreements. It is submitted that appointment of Arbitrator by the respondent is in contravention of "Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. Vs. HSCC (India) Ltd.", a judgement dated 26.11.2019 pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. 32/2019.
4. Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that he is ready for appointment of any other Arbitrator, if petitioner agrees to it.
5. I have considered the submissions. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in Managing Director of a company can neither become Arbitrator himself nor he can appoint any other person of his choice or discretion OMP (T) (COMM) 1-21 Page 2 of 3 Sunita Sachdeva Vs. M2K Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Order dt. 05.03.2022 as an Arbitrator. Admittedly, in the present case vide letter dated 11.09.2020 (Annexure-4) Sh. Vipin Jain, the Director of respondent had appointed Sh. Vageesh N. Sharma Advocate as an Arbitrator. This appointment is clearly in violation of the aforesaid judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
6. Accordingly, I hold that Sh. Vageesh N. Sharma Advocate has become de jure unable to perform his functions and accordingly, mandate of Arbitrator namely Sh. Vageesh N. Sharma Advocate in the Arbitration Proceedings titled as "M2K Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sunita Sachdeva", stands terminated.
Petition is allowed accordingly. File be consigned to record room. Announced in the open court on 05.03.2022.
(Vinod Kumar) District Judge (Commercial Court) North West District Rohini Courts, Delhi OMP (T) (COMM) 1-21 Page 3 of 3