Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ARB.P. 579/2021
ASIAN HOTELS (NORTH) LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sidhant Kumar, Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal, Dr. Joginder Singh and Ms. Manyaa Chandok, Advs.
Through: Mr. Rajiv Talwar, Mr. Amulya Dhingra and Mr. Diwakar Singh, Adv.
SHIVAM MEDIRATTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Talwar, Mr. Amulya Dhingra and Mr. Diwakar Singh, Adv.
Through: Mr. Sidhant Kumar, Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal, Dr. Joginder Singh and Ms. Manyaa Chandok, Advs.
23.07.2021 (Video-Conferencing)
C .HARI SHANKAR, J.
2021:DHC:2172
JUDGMENT
1. These are interconnected petitions, arising out of common disputes.
2. On the last date of hearing, ARB.P. 579/2021 was adjourned in order to enable the parties to explore as to whether the disputes could be referred to arbitration by this Court and OMP(I)(COMM) 252/2020 be referred for the adjudication by the learned arbitrator as an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”, in short).
3. Mr. Rajiv Talwar, learned Counsel for Mr. Shivam Mediratta, who is the respondent Arb. P. 579/2021 and is the petitioner in OMP(I)(COMM) 252/2020, is agreeable to the disputes being referred to arbitration by an arbitrator to be appointed by this Court. He submits that his only misgiving, regarding the reference of OMP(I)(COMM) 252/2020 to be adjudicated by the learned arbitrator as an application under Section 17 was regarding the authority of the arbitrator to adjudicate on prayer (a) in the said OMP.
4. Mr. Sidhant Kumar, learned counsel for M/s. Asian Hotels (North) Ltd., submits that there is no jurisdictional embargo on the arbitrator adjudicating either prayers (a) or (b) in OMP(I)(COMM) 252/2020. As such, he submits that he would not object to the maintainability of the said prayers before the learned Arbitral Tribunal and would restrict his arguments to contesting the prayers on merits.
5. In view thereof, I am of the opinion that it would be appropriate that this dispute is referred, for expeditious adjudication, to an arbitrator to be appointed by this Court.
6. As such, this Court appoints Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal (mobile: 09425155450, email: jus.pankaj.jaiswal@gmail.com), a former Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad to arbitrate on the disputes between the parties.
7. The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to charge fees in accordance with the Fourth Schedule to the 1996 Act.
8. The learned Arbitrator shall submit the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the 1996 Act within a week of entering on reference.
9. All questions of facts and law, except on the aspect of maintainability of the prayers in OMP(I)(COMM) 252/2020 before the learned Arbitral Tribunal, which is not being contested by Mr. Sidhant Kumar, are left open for agitation before the learned Arbitrator.
10. The learned Arbitrator would decide OMP(I)(COMM) 252/2020 as an application under Section 17 of the 1996 Act.
11. In order to expedite hearing of the matters, the petitioner in OMP(I)(COMM) 252/2020 is not required to re-file the OMP as a separate Section 17 application before the learned Arbitrator and is permitted to present OMP(I)(COMM) 252/2020 before the learned Arbitrator, who would treat it as an application under Section 17 of the 1996 Act.
12. Both parties shall be at liberty to seek permission from the learned Arbitrator to file any additional pleadings or documents, if so required and the learned Arbitrator would take a call thereon.
13. In view of the urgency expressed by Mr. Shivam Mediratta, the learned Arbitrator is requested to decide OMP(I)(COMM) 252/2020 as expeditiously as possible.
14. With the aforesaid observations, both the petitions stand disposed of. I.A. 7850/2021 (Section 151 CPC for exemption) in ARB.P. 579/2021 In view of the order passed in the petitions, this application stands disposed of.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.