Delhi High Court - Orders
Kadimi International Private Limited vs Emaar Mgf Land Limited on 23 August, 2021
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 5/2020
KADIMI INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr Vikas Mishra, Advocate.
versus
EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through Ms Manmeet Arora and Mr Tararang
Gupta, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 23.08.2021 [Hearing Held Through Videoconferencing]
1. The matter has been taken up today as 20.08.2021 was declared a holiday on account of Muharram.
I.A. 8080/2021 (early hearing)
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 5/2020
3. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the 'A&C Act'), inter alia, praying that the mandate of the Arbitrator appointed by the respondent be terminated and an Arbitrator be appointed his place.
4. Concededly, the said Arbitrator was appointed unilaterally by the respondent without consent of the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that in view of the decision of the Supreme Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Limited: 2019 SCC Online SC 1517 and as followed by this Court in Proddatur Cable TV Digi Services v. Citi Cable Network Limited: (2020) 267 DLT 51, such an appointment is invalid.
5. The said position of law is now well settled. Prima facie this Court agrees with the petitioner that unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator would fall foul with the provisions of law as explained in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. (supra) and as followed in Proddatur Cable TV Digi Services (supra).
6. Ms Arora, learned counsel appearing for the respondent does not contest the said position. She however states that the petitioner had advanced similar arguments in an earlier petition filed under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act ['Kadimi International Pvt. Ltd v. Emaar MGF Land Limited: Arb.P.485/2019]. The said contention was considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and was expressly rejected. She further submits that the contents of the said decision have attained finality, and therefore, the present petition is misconceived. She further states that the petitioner has no cause of action and a review of the said decision is also not permissible.
7. Prima facie, this Court is of the view that if the decision in Arb.P. 485/2019 requires a review, a technical objection would not preclude the Court from doing so.
8. Considering that the controversy was considered and decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court - albeit prior to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. (supra) -
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWALprima facie, the contentions on behalf of the petitioner are in the nature of seeking a review of the decision in Arb.P. 485/2019.
9. In view of the above, this Court considers it apposite that the present petition be listed before the bench of Hon'ble Mr Justice Sanjeev Narula, as the said bench had rendered the said decision.
10. Accordingly, list on 27.08.2021 before the Bench of Hon'ble Mr Sanjeev Narula, J. subject to the orders of Hon'ble the Judge In-charge (Original Side).
VIBHU BAKHRU, J AUGUST 23, 2021 nn Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL