Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ARB.P. 446/2024
MS ROYAL FURNISHERS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Parvinder Chauhan and Ms. Mahima Anand, Advs.
Through: None
14.08.2024
JUDGMENT
1. Though, on the last date of hearing, Mr. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, had submitted that there was a possibility of an amicable resolution of the dispute, he submits, today, that the respondent is not forthcoming for a resolution, and prays that the Court may proceed to appoint an arbitrator.
2. This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996[1] for reference of the dispute between the parties to arbitration.
3. The dispute arises in the context of four work orders, two of which were issued on 31 July 2021 and the other two on 28 February
2022.
4. All four work orders envisage resolution of disputes arising between the parties by arbitration, in the event of the disputes being unresolved otherwise.
5. Clauses 11 and 12 of the work orders dated 31 July 2021, which are representative of the clauses in the other work orders may be reproduced thus:
6. The respondent is unrepresented, despite service having been effected on them. No reply to this petition has been filed either. “the 1996 Act” hereinafter
7. Mr. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has drawn my attention to the legal notice dated 8 February 2024 addressed by the petitioner to the respondent, in which it has been categorically stated that several earlier e-mails had been written by the petitioner to the respondent, ventilating its claims, which met with no response and, therefore, seeking reference of the dispute to arbitration. There was no response to this communication either.
8. In these circumstances, applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Demerara Distilleries Pvt Ltd v. Demerara Distillers Ltd[2] and Visa International Ltd v. Continental Resources USA Ltd[3], relegating the parties to the exercise of any negotiated settlement is futile.
9. As there are arbitration clauses in all the four work orders, and as the parties have not been able to arrive at a consensus regarding arbitration, this Court has necessarily to appoint an arbitrator to arbitrate on the dispute between the parties.
10. The total claim of the petitioner against the respondent is stated to be in the region of ₹ 1.[3] crores.
11. Accordingly, this Court appoints Mr. Amit Yadav, Advocate (Mob: 9871066059) to arbitrate on the dispute between the parties. The arbitration shall take place under the aegis of the DIAC and shall abide by its rules and regulations.
12. The arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the schedule of fees maintained by the DIAC.
13. The learned Arbitrator is also requested to file the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the 1996 Act within a week of entering on the reference.
14. All questions of fact and law are left open for agitation in the arbitral proceedings.
15. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J