Full Text
Translation output
,l:
1.
? HIGH COURT OF DELHI ARB.P. I24I2OII M/S PARNIKA COMMERCIAL & ESTATES (P) LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. SandeeP Sharma and Ms Kanika Singh, Advocates
VCTSUS
UNION OF INDIA ResPondent
Through: Mr. Anshuman Sinha and Mr. Vijay Kumar PandeY, Advocates
1.
? HIGH COURT OF DELHI ARB.P. I24I2OII M/S PARNIKA COMMERCIAL & ESTATES (P) LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. SandeeP Sharma and Ms Kanika Singh, Advocates
VCTSUS
UNION OF INDIA ResPondent
Through: Mr. Anshuman Sinha and Mr. Vijay Kumar PandeY, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
ORDER o/o 3O.O9.2O11 Despite opportunity, no reply has been filed. This petition has been preferred under section lL of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act' as the respondent has refused to refer few of the petitioners claim to arbitration on the ground that they fall in the category of accepted matters, and therefore not arbitrable. Admittedly, some of the claims of the petitioner already stand referred to arbitration'
It is well settled that the issue as to whether or not a particular claim falls within the category of accepted matters is to be decided by the arbitral tribunal itself on an interpretation of the contract between the parties. The communication dated 04'04.20II issued by the respondent refusing to refer some of the claims to arbitration is, therefore, not justified. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.
{ 2011:DHC:19380 claim nos.3, 4,6,7,9,10, 11 and 12 as raised bythe petitioner which have not been referred to arbitration also stands referred to the same arbitrator who is adjudicating the other claims of the petitioner.
It goes without saying that the respondent is entitled to contend before the arbitral tribunal that the aforesaid claims are not arbitrable, and if such a defence is raised, the arbitrator shall decide the said issues by a reasoned order.
I Petition stands disPosed of.
SEPTEMBER 30, 2OL1 ST VIPIN SANGHI, J ( 2011:DHC:19380
ORDER o/o 3O.O9.2O11 Despite opportunity, no reply has been filed. This petition has been preferred under section lL of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act' as the respondent has refused to refer few of the petitioners claim to arbitration on the ground that they fall in the category of accepted matters, and therefore not arbitrable. Admittedly, some of the claims of the petitioner already stand referred to arbitration'
It is well settled that the issue as to whether or not a particular claim falls within the category of accepted matters is to be decided by the arbitral tribunal itself on an interpretation of the contract between the parties. The communication dated 04'04.20II issued by the respondent refusing to refer some of the claims to arbitration is, therefore, not justified. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.
{ 2011:DHC:19380 claim nos.3, 4,6,7,9,10, 11 and 12 as raised bythe petitioner which have not been referred to arbitration also stands referred to the same arbitrator who is adjudicating the other claims of the petitioner.
It goes without saying that the respondent is entitled to contend before the arbitral tribunal that the aforesaid claims are not arbitrable, and if such a defence is raised, the arbitrator shall decide the said issues by a reasoned order.
I Petition stands disPosed of.
SEPTEMBER 30, 2OL1 ST VIPIN SANGHI, J ( 2011:DHC:19380
JUDGMENT