Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

39. In rejoinder, Mr. Krishnan stressed the point that the petitioner was unaware of the letter dated 16.07.2018 issued to the learned Arbitrator till its receipt on 24.07.2018. The fact that the petitioner was keen in having the arbitration process expedited was sought to be brought to fore by Mr. Krishnan, once again, by adverting to its letter dated 31.07.2018 addressed to the DIAC. The fine point that Mr. Krishnan sought to make, is that, via letter dated 16.07.2018, the DIAC, had called upon the learned Arbitrator to given his consent and make a declaration in terms of Schedule IV of the DIAC Rules, and therefore, the Arbitral Tribunal would get constituted only when the petitioner had notice of occurrence of such an eventuality. 39.1 Furthermore, Mr. Krishnan made it a point to lay stress on the fact that the petitioner was unaware of the purported declaration dated 23.07.2018, said to have been issued by the learned Arbitrator on which reliance was placed by the respondent to show that the Arbitral Tribunal had been constituted. In any event, according to Mr. Krishnan, the supposed declaration dated 23.07.2018, which had been placed on record, OMP (I) (COMM) No.326/2018 Pg. 28 of 65 was an unsigned document which did not reflect that the learned Arbitrator had accepted his appointment. Given this position, Mr. Krishnan contended that the bar under Section 9 of the 1996 Act would not apply in this case. 39.2 As regards the contention raised on behalf of the respondent that this Court had no jurisdiction in the matter, in view of the fact that the 2018 Arbitration Agreement only changed the venue of Arbitration from Gurugram to Delhi, Mr. Krishnan submitted to the contrary. It was the learned counsel‟s contention that the exclusive jurisdiction clause obtaining in the MOU ceased to have an effect with the execution of the 2018 Arbitration Agreement as the parties intended to change both, the seat as well the venue from Gurugram to Delhi. In support of his submission, that this court had the jurisdiction, reliance was placed by the learned counsel on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharat Aluminium Co. Vs. Kaiser aluminium Technical Services Inc1, (2012) 9 SCC 552.