Full Text
Translation output
F
5.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ARB,P. 23I2OIT M/S CMS INFO SYSTEMS PRIVATE LTD PCtitiONCT
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Puri, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ruchin Midha, Advocate
5.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ARB,P. 23I2OIT M/S CMS INFO SYSTEMS PRIVATE LTD PCtitiONCT
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Puri, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ruchin Midha, Advocate
VERSUS
CENTRE FOR RAILWAY INFORMATION SYSTEMS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. N.N. Aggarwal and Mr. Arvind Biswal, Advocates
Through: Mr. N.N. Aggarwal and Mr. Arvind Biswal, Advocates
CORAM:
HON',BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
Vo 2O.O7.2OLL The respondent has nominated an arbitrator in terms of clause
29.4 of the agreement. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that under clause 29.4, the procedure for constitution of the arbitral tribunal, inter alia, provides that the petitioner/contractor would submit a panel of arbitrators, and the Managing Director of the respondent would then appoint one person as arbitrator from the panel provided as petitioners nominee. The second arbitrator has to be nominated by the Managing Director of the respondent, who has already been nominated, It is pointed out that petitioner did not submit a panel and instead sought to unilaterally appoint an arbitrator vide its notice dated 23.L]-2010. In fact, the petitioner had no right to nominate an a
:- 2011:DHC:6754 ,FA ) arbitrator but only to submit a panel, out of which the Managing
Director of the respondent had to nominate an arbitrator. ln view of the aforesaid position, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submit that apart from the name already suggested by the petitioner, the petitioner also suggests the name of
Mr. Justice M.L. Verma, retired Judge of this Court. He submits that the respondent may chose one of the two suggested persons aS a nominee arbitrator.
Let the Managing Director of the respondent nominate one of the two persons on the panel, namely, Mr. Justice M,L. Verma, retired Judge of this Court and Mr. V.K. Gupta, former Chief Justice of Himachal High
Court, Uttrakhand High Court and Jharkhand High Court. The nomination be made within two weeks.
The two arbitrators shall thereafter nominate arbitrator in accordance with law.
Petition stands disposed of. Dasti. the presiding
VIPIN SANGHI, J JULY 20,ZOLL ST f 2011:DHC:6754
Vo 2O.O7.2OLL The respondent has nominated an arbitrator in terms of clause
29.4 of the agreement. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that under clause 29.4, the procedure for constitution of the arbitral tribunal, inter alia, provides that the petitioner/contractor would submit a panel of arbitrators, and the Managing Director of the respondent would then appoint one person as arbitrator from the panel provided as petitioners nominee. The second arbitrator has to be nominated by the Managing Director of the respondent, who has already been nominated, It is pointed out that petitioner did not submit a panel and instead sought to unilaterally appoint an arbitrator vide its notice dated 23.L]-2010. In fact, the petitioner had no right to nominate an a
:- 2011:DHC:6754 ,FA ) arbitrator but only to submit a panel, out of which the Managing
Director of the respondent had to nominate an arbitrator. ln view of the aforesaid position, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submit that apart from the name already suggested by the petitioner, the petitioner also suggests the name of
Mr. Justice M.L. Verma, retired Judge of this Court. He submits that the respondent may chose one of the two suggested persons aS a nominee arbitrator.
Let the Managing Director of the respondent nominate one of the two persons on the panel, namely, Mr. Justice M,L. Verma, retired Judge of this Court and Mr. V.K. Gupta, former Chief Justice of Himachal High
Court, Uttrakhand High Court and Jharkhand High Court. The nomination be made within two weeks.
The two arbitrators shall thereafter nominate arbitrator in accordance with law.
Petition stands disposed of. Dasti. the presiding
VIPIN SANGHI, J JULY 20,ZOLL ST f 2011:DHC:6754
JUDGMENT