Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Saroj Pandey vs Aaryavrat Products India Pvt. Ltd on 30 January, 2023

Author: Chandra Dhari Singh

Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh

                  $~4
                  *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                  +       O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 110/2022 & I.A. 18802/2022
                          SAROJ PANDEY                                          ..... Petitioner
                                            Through:     Mr. Lohit Ganguly and Ms. Reeta
                                                         Punia, Advocates
                                            versus
                          AARYAVRAT PRODUCTS INDIA PVT. LTD                   ..... Respondent
                                            Through:     None
                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
                                            ORDER

% 30.01.2023

1. The instant petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"That in the facts and circumstances set out hereinabove the Hon'ble Court may be pleased u/s 14 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to declare that Mr. Akash Swami, the Sole Arbitrator, is de jure unable to continue to perform his functions and consequentially to terminate his mandate and direct him to not to proceed with the arbitration proceedings being conducted by him."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notice has been issued to the respondent as per the order dated 17th November, 2022 passed by the predecessor of this Court, however, the respondent is intentionally avoiding the acceptance of notice.

3. It is submitted that on 4th January, 2022, the respondent no.

1/company issued a legal notice to the petitioner through counsel raising a claim of Rs. 27415/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Fifteen Only) along with the legal costs of Rs. 21,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand Only).

4. It is further submitted that between April to June, 2022, the respondent no. 1/company appointed one Mr. Akash Swami, Advocate as an Arbitrator without the consent of the petitioner, contrary of the judgment of the Apex Court titled as Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd; 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1517. It is submitted that appointment of the said advocate as an Arbitrator is also contrary to the agreement clause.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent is not intentionally not receiving the notice and avoiding the same. However, he is appearing in the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of NI Act before the Court as well as arbitration proceedings before the Arbitrator.

6. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that a Dasti notice be issued to the respondent and till the next date of hearing of this Court, the arbitration proceedings, which have been initiated contrary to the agreement before the Arbitrator, may be also kept in abeyance.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

8. In view of the above foregoing paragraphs and discussions, issue fresh notice to respondent through all permissible modes including Dasti on filing PF within one week.

9. List on 29th March, 2023.

10. The arbitration proceedings, if any, before the Arbitrator as stated by the petitioner during the arguments may be kept in abeyance till the next Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:31.01.2023 19:16:55 date of hearing.

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J JANUARY 30, 2023 gs/ug Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:31.01.2023 19:16:55