Delhi High Court - Orders
Anjani Kumar Rai vs Klj Developers Private Limited on 11 January, 2021
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~4 and 5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 5/2021
ANJANI KUMAR RAI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Avinash Kumar Trivedi,
Adv.
versus
KLJ DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through
+ O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 4/2021
CHHAYA RAI & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Avinash Kumar Trivedi,
Adv.
versus
KLJ DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 11.01.2021
(Video-Conferencing)
O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 5/2021, IAs 383/2021 (Section 151 CPC) & 384/2021 (Section 151 CPC) O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 4/2021 IAs 381/2021 (Section 151 CPC) & 382/2021 (Section 151 CPC)
1. The petitioners, essentially, seek a substitution of the learned arbitrator, who is presently arbitrating on the dispute between the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 5/2021 & cont. matter Page 1 of 3 By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:14.01.2021 17:13:12 petitioners and the respondent on the ground that his appointment is violation of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "1996 Act"), read with the 7th Schedule thereto, as well as the judgments of the Supreme Court in Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. versus United Telecoms Ltd.1and Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. versus HSCC (India) Limited 2.
2. Admittedly, the petitioners have moved an application before the learned arbitrator, under Section 16 of the 1996 Act, praying that the learned arbitrator may refrain from continuing with the proceedings in view, inter alia, of the above alleged infirmities in his appointment.
3. In my view, as the petitioners have elected to move the learned arbitrator under Section 16 of the 1996 Act, before this Court adjudicates on the present petitions, it would be appropriate to obtain the view of the learned sole arbitrator on the said application.
4. The learned sole arbitrator is, therefore, directed to take a decision on his competence to continue as arbitrator, and the contention of the petitioners, that his mandate stands terminated de jure in view of Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act read with the 7th Schedule thereto and the judgments of the Supreme Court in Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. versus United Telecoms Ltd.1 and Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. versus HSCC (India) Limited2 1 (2019) 5 SCC 755 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 5/2021 & cont. matter Page 2 of 3 By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:14.01.2021 17:13:12
5. The learned sole arbitrator is directed to take a decision on issue after hearing both parties, on or before 23rd January, 2021, and before proceeding further with the arbitral proceedings. The order passed in that regard, shall be communicated to learned counsel for the parties, as soon as it is ready.
7. Inasmuch as the petitioner questions the very jurisdiction of the learned arbitrator to proceed in this matter, the learned arbitrator is requested to take decision on this submission as expeditiously as possible.
8. Renotify on 29th January, 2021, so that this Court could have the benefit of the view of the learned sole arbitrator of the aforesaid contention of the petitioners. In case the learned arbitrator takes the decision on the objection of the petition, as aforesaid, before the said date, learned Counsel are at liberty to place the decision on record in these proceedings, by way of an appropriate application/affidavit, so that this Court could decide on the further course of action.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J JANUARY 11, 2021 r.bararia 2 2019 SCC Online SC 1517 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 5/2021 & cont. matter Page 3 of 3 By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:14.01.2021 17:13:12