Full Text
Translation output
il 6.
,< e HIGH COURT OF DELHI ARB.P. 73l20ll CDR S.P. PURI (RETD) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr, D. Verma, Advocate.
VCTSUS
AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate.
,< e HIGH COURT OF DELHI ARB.P. 73l20ll CDR S.P. PURI (RETD) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr, D. Verma, Advocate.
VCTSUS
AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON',BLE MR. JUSTTCE VtPtN SANGHI
20.07.20LL Ms. Ahlawat puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent and states that before the receipt of the notice issued by this court, an
Arbitrator has been nominated. She, however, does not dispute that the appointment has been made after filing of the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the appointment of
Arbitrator under Clause 5.2 of the agreement dated 29.L2.2000 had to be made by mutual consent of both the parties. The power of the
Administrative Head of the APMC was only to notify the said appointment. Therefore, the respondent, in any event, could not have unilaterally appointed an Arbitrator.
The appointment of an Arbitrator by the respondent after filing of the present petition is not permissible in view of the Supreme Court decision in Datar Switchgears Ltd, v, Tata Finance Ltd, & Anr., i
(-l 2011:DHC:6775 r\t ( ! 2000 (3) Arb.LR 447 (SC). lmay note that in this case when the petitioner invoked the arbitration agreement, the stand taken by the respondent in its communication dated 01.03.201L was that, as according to the respondent, the agreement stood cancelled, there was no question of appointment of an Arbitrator, The said stand of the respondent is patently illegal. lt appears that the respondent is completely unmindful of the legal position. lt is this approach of the respondent, which has compelled the petitioner to approach this court by filing this petition and has led to the petitioner incurring avoidable costs & expenses. lt is also led to delay in the adjudication of the disputes between the parties.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. I appoint Mr. Justice Sat Pal, Retired Judge ef+*-*c+rm+ as the Sole Arbitrator. The parties agree yr that the arbitration be conducted under the rules of the Delhi High
Court Arbitration Centre. The counsel have signed a joint memorandum to this effect and tendered the same to the court. This petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
A copy of this order be communicated to the Delhi High Couft
Arbitration Centre as well as to the learned Arbitrator.
JULY 20,?OLL ,BSR' SANGHI, J 2011:DHC:6775
20.07.20LL Ms. Ahlawat puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent and states that before the receipt of the notice issued by this court, an
Arbitrator has been nominated. She, however, does not dispute that the appointment has been made after filing of the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the appointment of
Arbitrator under Clause 5.2 of the agreement dated 29.L2.2000 had to be made by mutual consent of both the parties. The power of the
Administrative Head of the APMC was only to notify the said appointment. Therefore, the respondent, in any event, could not have unilaterally appointed an Arbitrator.
The appointment of an Arbitrator by the respondent after filing of the present petition is not permissible in view of the Supreme Court decision in Datar Switchgears Ltd, v, Tata Finance Ltd, & Anr., i
(-l 2011:DHC:6775 r\t ( ! 2000 (3) Arb.LR 447 (SC). lmay note that in this case when the petitioner invoked the arbitration agreement, the stand taken by the respondent in its communication dated 01.03.201L was that, as according to the respondent, the agreement stood cancelled, there was no question of appointment of an Arbitrator, The said stand of the respondent is patently illegal. lt appears that the respondent is completely unmindful of the legal position. lt is this approach of the respondent, which has compelled the petitioner to approach this court by filing this petition and has led to the petitioner incurring avoidable costs & expenses. lt is also led to delay in the adjudication of the disputes between the parties.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. I appoint Mr. Justice Sat Pal, Retired Judge ef+*-*c+rm+ as the Sole Arbitrator. The parties agree yr that the arbitration be conducted under the rules of the Delhi High
Court Arbitration Centre. The counsel have signed a joint memorandum to this effect and tendered the same to the court. This petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
A copy of this order be communicated to the Delhi High Couft
Arbitration Centre as well as to the learned Arbitrator.
JULY 20,?OLL ,BSR' SANGHI, J 2011:DHC:6775
JUDGMENT