Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 05.09.2024
MATSYA FINCAP PVT LTD .....Appellant
Through: Ms Shivani Garg, Advocate
Through: Mr Neeraj Dinkar and Mr B.S. Malik, Advocates.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
AMIT BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 2nd April, 2024 passed by the learned District Judge-Commercial Court-05 (Central), Tis Hazari, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Execution Court’).
2. Via the impugned judgment, the Execution Court has, in effect, refused to enforce the Award as it concluded that the Award was a “nullity”. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Execution Court has reached this conclusion as it accepted the submission advanced on behalf of the respondent that the appointment of the arbitrator was unilateral. Accordingly, the objections filed on behalf of the respondent were allowed and the execution petition was dismissed.
3. Notice was issued by this Court vide order dated 22nd July, 2024.
4. Authorised Representative (hereinafter referred to as “AR”) of the appellant submits that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the appellant, the appellant would be satisfied with initiation of de novo arbitration between the parties and a Sole Arbitrator being appointed by this court.
5. Counsel for the respondent submits that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties and the agreement placed on record by the appellant does not bear the signatures of the respondent. Therefore, the parties cannot be referred for arbitration.
6. AR of the appellant-company submits that in view of the aforesaid objection taken by the respondent, the appellant would have no reservation in initiating a suit action against the respondent, however, the respondent should not be permitted to take an objection in the said suit action with regard to existence of an arbitration agreement.
7. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the present appeal is disposed of in the following terms: i. The appellant-company would at liberty to file a suit action against the respondent. The aforesaid suit action would be filed before the competent court in Delhi as the respondent resides in Delhi. ii. In the suit action, the respondent will not raise any objection with regard to maintainability of the suit on account of existence of an arbitration clause. iii. In the event, the appellant-company seeks exclusion of time in filing of the suit in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the same would be considered by the Civil Court in accordance with the law.
AMIT BANSAL (JUDGE)
RAJIV SHAKDHER (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 05, 2024