Swastik Pipe Ltd v. Jagpal Sharma

Delhi High Court · 10 Dec 2021 · 2021:DHC:4107
Suresh Kumar Kait
ARB.P. 101/2021
2021:DHC:4107
civil petition_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after deeming Whatsapp service valid and noting the respondent's non-appearance.

Full Text
Translation output
ARB.P. 101/2021
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 10.12.2021
ARB.P. 101/2021
SWASTIK PIPE LTD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sanjay Jain and Ms. Kritika Khanna, Advs.
VERSUS
JAGPAL SHARMA ..... Respondent
Through Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
JUDGMENT
(oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Sections 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes with respondent.

2. As per the averments made by petitioner, petitioner is a company duly incorporated under the Company Act, 1956. Pursuant to business dealings and relations between the parties, respondent was purchasing ERW Precision Tubes and C.R. Strips from the petitioner on a running account basis. A total sum of Rs.29,34,170/- including @18% per annum from 01.04.2019 till 17.02.2020 was due against the goods already received by 2021:DHC:4107 respondent. Thereafter, dispute arose between the parties. Petitioner sent a legal notice dated 27.02.2020 seeking Demand-cum-Appointment of Arbitrator, however, the same was returned to petitioner with the remarks “item returned as no such person in the address”. Therefore, the present petition has been filed.

3. None has appeared on behalf of respondent.

4. As per the report from Registry, service report qua notice to respondent through ordinary, dasti, courier, speed post, e-mail, fax and Whatsapp is awaited.

5. As per the affidavit of service filed by the petitioner, service upon respondent has been effected through Whatsapp as is evident from ‘blue ticks’ on the message sent by learned counsel for petitioner to respondent which is a deemed service. However, despite that, respondent has preferred not to appear before this Court. It seems that respondent has nothing to oppose the present petition.

6. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, Mr. Justice (Retd.) Vinod Goel (Mobile:9910384637) is appointed sole Arbitrator in this petition to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

7. The fee of the learned Arbitrator shall be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

8. The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.

9. The present petition and pending application, if any, are accordingly disposed of.

10. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Arbitrator for information.

JUDGE DECEMBER 10, 2021 rk