Full Text
Translation output
$51&52 ^k HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ARB.P. 208/2013
ANIL KUMAR GUPTA
Through Mr. Arpit Gupta, Adv.
ARB.P. 208/2013
ANIL KUMAR GUPTA
Through Mr. Arpit Gupta, Adv.
VERSUS
AMR INFRASTRUCTURES LTD
Through None
Through None
ARB.P. 209/2013
BHAWANA GUPTA
Through Mr. Arpit Gupta, Adv.
BHAWANA GUPTA
Through Mr. Arpit Gupta, Adv.
VERSUS
AMR INFRASTRUCTURES LTD
Through None
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
20.05.2013 Petitioner Respondent Petitioner Respondent
I.A.No.8202/2013 (exemption) in Arb.P.No.208/2013 and
I.A.No.8204/2013 (exemption) in Arb.P.No.209/2013
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
The applications are disposed of I.A.No.8203/2013 in Arb.P.No.208/2013 and
I.A.No.8205/2013 in Arb.P.No.209/2013 The abovernentioned applications have been filed by the respective petitioners for condonation of delay of 66 days in re-filing the petitions.
2013:DHC:8088 For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed and the delay in re-filing is condoned.
The applications are disposed of Arb.P.No.208/2013 & Arb.P.No.209/2013
The abovernentioned petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners, namely Anil Kumar Gupta and his wife Bhawana Gupta, under
Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator.
The facts are common in both the matters. Therefore, these petitions are decided together.
The petitioners in both the matters issued notices dated 3rd August, 2012 under Section 11 of the Act for invoking the arbitration relying upon the MOU dated 26th August, 2009. The contention of the petitioners is that there is no compliance on behalf of the respondent with regard to the ten-is and conditions of the said MOU. The notices of the petitioners were replied by the respondent, who is relying upon the Compromise Deed dated 21s'
December, 2011. The contention of the respondent in the reply is that nothing has been due as all the issues raised have already been settled by virtue of the Compromise Deed dated 21St December, 2011 after the MOU in question.
During the course of the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners has admitted that the Compromise Deed is signed by his respective clients. He has also admitted that his clients have received the payment in terms of the Compromise Deed. Admittedly, the
Compromise Deed is subsequent to the period of the MOU. In view thereof, it appears that there is no dispute remains between the parties which could be adjudicated by the Arbitrator. Since there is no live dispute between the parties, the petitions are totally misconceived and the same are accordingly dismissed.
VftS"f'4V MAY 20, 2013 I
20.05.2013 Petitioner Respondent Petitioner Respondent
I.A.No.8202/2013 (exemption) in Arb.P.No.208/2013 and
I.A.No.8204/2013 (exemption) in Arb.P.No.209/2013
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
The applications are disposed of I.A.No.8203/2013 in Arb.P.No.208/2013 and
I.A.No.8205/2013 in Arb.P.No.209/2013 The abovernentioned applications have been filed by the respective petitioners for condonation of delay of 66 days in re-filing the petitions.
2013:DHC:8088 For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed and the delay in re-filing is condoned.
The applications are disposed of Arb.P.No.208/2013 & Arb.P.No.209/2013
The abovernentioned petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners, namely Anil Kumar Gupta and his wife Bhawana Gupta, under
Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator.
The facts are common in both the matters. Therefore, these petitions are decided together.
The petitioners in both the matters issued notices dated 3rd August, 2012 under Section 11 of the Act for invoking the arbitration relying upon the MOU dated 26th August, 2009. The contention of the petitioners is that there is no compliance on behalf of the respondent with regard to the ten-is and conditions of the said MOU. The notices of the petitioners were replied by the respondent, who is relying upon the Compromise Deed dated 21s'
December, 2011. The contention of the respondent in the reply is that nothing has been due as all the issues raised have already been settled by virtue of the Compromise Deed dated 21St December, 2011 after the MOU in question.
During the course of the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners has admitted that the Compromise Deed is signed by his respective clients. He has also admitted that his clients have received the payment in terms of the Compromise Deed. Admittedly, the
Compromise Deed is subsequent to the period of the MOU. In view thereof, it appears that there is no dispute remains between the parties which could be adjudicated by the Arbitrator. Since there is no live dispute between the parties, the petitions are totally misconceived and the same are accordingly dismissed.
VftS"f'4V MAY 20, 2013 I
JUDGMENT