Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ARB.P. 518/2024
PVR INOX LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Gehlot, Mr. T.S.
Thakran and Mr. Rukon Vadhera, Advs.
Through: Mr. Anand Mishra, Mr. Sachin Midha and Mr. Aditya Vikram Bajpai, Advs. for Respondents 1 and 3
JUDGMENT
30.07.2024
1. This petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996[1] seeks reference of the disputes between the parties to arbitration.
2. Learned Counsel for Respondents 1 and 3 has no objection to reference of the disputes to arbitration, but submits that Respondent 2 is not a party to the arbitration agreement and that, therefore, it may not be appropriate to refer Respondent 2 to arbitration at this juncture.
3. Mr. Gehlot, learned Counsel for the petitioner is agreeable to “the 1996 Act” hereinafter the question of inclusion of Respondent 2 in the arbitral proceedings being left for agitation and discussion before the learned arbitrator.
4. A Maintenance Agreement dated 11 May 2018 was executed between the petitioner and Respondents 1 and 3. The agreement contains the following clause, which envisages resolution of dispute by arbitration:
5. Disputes arose between the parties. As they could not be amicably resolved, the petitioner addressed a notice under Section 21 of the 1996 Act to Respondents 1, 2 and 3 on 21 February 2024. The claim of the petitioner against Respondents 1, 2 and 3 is only for refund of security deposit of ₹ 6 Lakhs.
6. Mr. Anand Mishra, learned Counsel for Respondents 1 and 3 submits that Respondents 1 and 3 may also have counter-claims in the matter to the tune of approximately ₹ 24 Lakhs.
7. By a separate order passed today, this Court has referred another dispute between the petitioner and Respondent 1 to arbitration by Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Advocate (Tel: 9811042847). Inasmuch as the parties are same, the Court deems it appropriate to appoint the same arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes in the present case. The fees of the arbitrator shall be determined by the arbitrator in consultation with the parties.
8. All questions of law and facts are left open. Respondents 1 and 3 are at liberty to urge all legal submissions before the arbitrator as well as urge any counter-claims that they may choose to raise in accordance with law.
9. For the present, the arbitration shall be between the petitioner and Respondents 1 and 3. The question of inclusion of Respondent 2 in the arbitral proceedings is left open to be agitated and decided by the arbitrator.
10. The arbitrator is requested to file the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the 1996 Act within a week of entering on reference.
11. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.