R G Residency Pvt Ltd v. Sumit Bansal

1. These three applications have been filed for impleadment of one Mr. Rajesh Goyal as the petitioner No.2 in these petitions. Mr. Rajesh Goyal is the Managing Director ofthe petitioner- company. According to the petitioner, the respondents have invoked the arbitration proceedings against both the petitioner- company and Mr. Goyal personally. In these circumstances, Mr. Rajiv B. Samaiyar, learned counsel for the respondents,has no objection to the impleadment ofMr.Rajesh Goyal as the petitionerNo.2inthese proceedings. ^

2. The applications are,therefore,allowed.

3. Amended memo ofparties be filed within the course ofthe day. I.A. 12374/2022(for placins;additional documents)in ARB.P.748/2022 I.A. 12375/2022(for placins additional documents)in ARB.P.749/2022 I.A.12369/2022(for placins additional documents)in ARB.P.750/2022

1. These applications have been filed by the petitioner for placing additional documents on record. The applications are not opposed by the respondents.

2. The applications are allowed,and the additional documents filed by the petitioner are taken on record. ARB.P.748/2022& I.A. 10054/2022(for stay) ARB.P.749/2022 & I.A. 10056/2022(for stay) ARB.P.750/2022 & I.A. 10058/2022(for stay)

1. These three petitions under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation, 1996 ["the Act"], seeking appointment of arbitrators, have been filed by the same petitioners against three members of the same family. Ihe arbitration proceedings arise between the parties under three ARB.P.748/2022andconnectedmatter.^ 2of[5] Thisisa digitallysigned orderand the orderis available on DHC Website for verification. The Orderis downloadedfrom the DHCSecuredServeron 08/08/2022at 11:17:42 IS' I'A: HfeS" agreements to sell of an immovable property executed by the petitioner No.l with the three respondents. The agreements to sell are dated 24.11.2015 [in ARB.P. 748/2022],21.11.2015 [in ARB.?. 749/2015] and 19.11.2015 [in ARB.P.750/2015].

2. As the disputes agitated in these petitions are virtually identical, and the respondents are also members of the same family, the petitions are taken up for hearing together, with the consent oflearned counsel for the parties.

3. The three agreements to sell are substantially identical. Each of them contains an arbitration clause (clause 10 in ARB.P. 748/2022 and clause 11 in ARB.P. 749/2022 and ARB.P. 750/2022). Under the arbitration clauses,the arbitrator was to be appointed by the respondents. As disputes arose between the parties, the respondents proceeded to appoint a sole arbitrator common to all three proceedings (Mr. Sachin Bansal,Advocate),and have filed their statements ofclaims before him.

4. Upon receipt of notice from the arbitrator, the petitioner has approached this Courtfor appointment ofa substitute arbitrator in view of the judgment ofthe Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and Another vs. HSCC(India) Limited(2020)20 SCC 760, which holds that unilateral appointment ofan arbitrator is invalid. The said judgment has been followed in later judgments of the Supreme Court and of this Court.

5. In view of the aforesaid position, learned counsel for the respondents,consents that the mandate ofMr. Sachin Bansal, Advocate, who was appointed as the sole arbitrator unilaterally by the respondents, be terminated, and an independent arbitrator be appointed by this Court, ARB.P.748/2022 and connected matters Thisisa digitallysigned orderand theorderisavailableon OHO Websitefor verification. The Orderis downloadedfrom the DHCSecured Serveron 08/08/2022at 11:17:42 Page3of[5] n\ H: common to all three proceedings. However,learned counsel requests that the proceedings be referred to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court,Shershah Road,New Delhi-110503["DIAC"].

6. Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner also endorses these submissions.

7. For the reasons aforesaid, the petitions are disposed of with the consent oflearned counsel for the parties with the following directions: (a) Mr. O.P. Saini, retired District and Sessions Judge, Delhi [Tel:^ +91 9717196857] is appointed as the Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising in these three arbitration proceedings, in place of the sole arbitrator appointed by the respondents. (b)The statement ofclaims filed by the respondents herein be placed before the newly appointed Arbitrator. Mr.Aggarwal states thatthe petitioner will file its statement of defence before the Arbitrator within four weeks from today so that the proceedings are not unnecessarily delayed. (c)The arbitration proceedings will be held underthe aegis ofDIAC. (d)Disputes under each agreement will constitute a separate reference. (e)The remuneration of the learned Arbitrator will be computed in accordance with the rules ofthe DIAC. (f)All rights and contentions ofthe parties are left open,including any arguments available to the parties under Section 16 ofthe Act.

8. It is made clear that this order has been passed in view of the prevailing legal position following theJudgment ofthe Supreme Court in PerkinsEastman(supra).No aspersion has been cast by any party on the independence or impartiality ofthe erstwhile Arbitrator. ARB.P.748/2022andconnected mailers ThisISa digitallysignedorderandtheorderisavailableon DHC Websitefor verification. The Orderis downloadedfrom theDHCSecuredServeron08/08/2022at11:17:42 Page4of[5]

9. The petitions, alongwith the pending applications, stand disposed ofwith these directions.

AUGUST 4,2022 'vp' PRATEEK JALAN,J Click here to check corrigendum, ifany ARB.P.748/2022 and connected matters Page 5of[5] Thisis a digitallysigned orderand the orderis available on DHC Websitefor verification. The Orderis downloadedfrom the DHCSecured Server on 08/0812022 at 11:17:42