Delhi High Court - Orders
Master Hiren Goel & Anr vs M/S Bdr Builders And Developers Pvt ... on 11 November, 2021
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 96/2021, I.A. 12375/2021 and I.A. 12374/2021
MASTER HIREN GOEL & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Mukul Talwar, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Aman Bhalla, Mr. Aman
Tehlan, Advocates.
versus
M/S BDR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT LIMITED & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Senior Adv. with
Mr. Sanjay Goswami, Mr. Akhil
Sachhar, Mr. Sachin Jain and Mr.
Himanshu Yadav, Advs. for R-2 to 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 11.11.2021 [VIA HYBRID MODE]
1. The present petition under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter "the Act"] seeks termination of mandate of the Sole Arbitrator and appointment of a substitute Arbitrator.
2. Mr. Ravi Gupta, learned counsel for the Respondent, submits that although he seriously contests the prayers made in the present petition, however, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, with a view to expedite arbitration proceedings, he has instructions to say that the Respondents do not oppose the request made by the Petitioner.
3. In view of the above, since there is consensus between the parties, the present petition is allowed. The mandate of Sh. Anil Sharma, Sole Arbitrator, is hereby terminated.
4. Accordingly, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayant Nath, (Retd.) former Judge of this Court [Contact No.: +91 8527959494] is appointed as the substitute Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes in respect of Agreement to Sell dated 19th July 2014 which were being adjudicated by the erstwhile Sole Arbitrator.
5. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Sole Arbitrator as and when notified. This is subject to the learned Arbitrator making the necessary disclosure under Section 12(1) of the Act and not being ineligible under Section 12(5) of the Act.
6. The learned substitute Arbitrator shall charge his fee in consultation with the counsels for the parties.
7. It is noticed that the proceedings are at the stage of Respondent's evidence. It is thus clarified that, in order to expedite the proceedings, the learned substitute Arbitrator shall commence from the stage at which the arbitral proceedings presently stand before the erstwhile Arbitrator.
8. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that an application of Respondents No. 2 to 4 to lead evidence, in view of the demise of Mr. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, is pending for consideration before the erstwhile Arbitrator. Let the same be considered by the learned substitute Arbitrator.
9. The Court has further been informed that the fee of erstwhile Arbitrator, while settled by the Respondents, remains unpaid by the Petitioner. It is directed that 60 % of the total fee payable to the erstwhile Arbitrator shall be paid to him, if outstanding, prior to commencement of proceedings before the learned substitute Arbitrator.
10. The erstwhile Arbitrator shall hand over the entire arbitral record to the Claimant for onward transmission to the learned substitute Arbitrator.
11. It is clarified that the Court has not examined any of the claims of the parties and all rights and contentions on merits are left open. Both the parties shall be free to raise their claims/ counter claims before the learned Arbitrator in accordance with law.
12. It is also clarified that the discharge of mandate bears no reflection to the impartiality or integrity of Sh. Anil Sharma, Advocate.
13. In view of the foregoing, the present petition along with the pending applications stands disposed of.
SANJEEV NARULA, J NOVEMBER 11, 2021 Pallavi