TATA TELESERVICES v. STARFIN INDIA PVT. LTD

1 This is a petition under Section 1Lofth~ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short' 1996 AcC)..

2 Notice in this petition was issueckon dS',07.2016. The record shows.'...'.[4] ",," ~_', "~'_ ~ ~. L-..;',., "'~'.. that the petitioner was unable to effect serv:ice for;a: very long time. Finally, " '. '.;.', ' ~pon service being effected on the: reskpn:d~'nt, oil.the previous date i.e.,.1,' r.,. """' 09.07.2018, Mr. Sanjay Mishra and Mr: Nitdli Singia, Advocates, entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. On that date, three weeks were granted to the Advocates for the.. respondent tQ DIe a'reply to the captioned petition. Today neither is the counse'l for 'the respondent present nor has a reply been filed.

3 The petitioner's case, broadly, is as follows:

4 The petitioner, avers that it is in the business of telecommunication services. It is the petitioner's say that the respondent was desirous of availing those services and, had accordingly, approached the petitioner. 1t is ARB.P.38512016 Pg.} of[3] 2018:DHC:8910 stated that the respondent had raised a purchase order for beingprovided 1 Mbps internet lease line at an annual recurring charge ofRs.[1] lakh. 4.[1] This purchase order, apparently, was raised by the respondent in and about 24.01.2011. 4.[2] In pursuance of the said contract obtaining between the parties, a Customer Application Form (in short 'CAF') dated 25.01.2011 appears to have been executed between the parties. This was followed by, it appears, the execution ofthe services agreement. 4.[3] To be noted, though, the record shows'tl:lat the Services Agreement i. bears the date 27.01.2011, according to thepe~itioner, it was executed on 28.01.2011.

5 The petitioner claims that the respoHaent owes to it a sum of I Rs.3,13,657.6/- on account ofthe services prov~ded by it.

6 Apparently, the petitioner had se~edonithe respondent a notice dated,;~,. 01.01.2016, demanding the aforemention:~Q"aih~mnt~long with interest and ',.,,'0) costs. " '

7 I am informed by the leafii:ed"q9P:nS:~t fpr::the petitioner that the petitioner did not receive any responset~'the ~~ti'de dated 01.01.2016.

8 Since there is no reply filed by the respondent, there is no rebuttal to the assertions made in the petitio'll..The" "Servi~es Agt<;:'ement contains an.... ­ i. arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreem,ent is incorporated in Clause 15 ofthe Services Agreement, which reads as follows: "15. ARBITRATION: It is mutually agreed between the Parties, that in the event any difference or dispute relating to these terms and conditions, the same shall be referred to an Arbitral Tribunal comprising ofa sole arbitrator to be nominated by in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996 ARB.P. 38512016 Pg.20/3 [~ {"the Act"). The award of the Arbitral Tribunal shall be final and binding on all the Parties. The Arbitration proceedings shall be held in Delhi, and shall be conducted in such language as specified by the Arbitral Tribunal. The arbitral proceedings and the arbitral award shall be governed by the provisions of the Act. "

9 Clearly, the arbitration agreement provi~es for appointment of a sole Arbitrator. As indicated above, despite a legal,notice having been served on the respondent, there has been no response to the same. lOIn these circumstances, I am inclined to allow the petition., " ' I '

11 Accordingly, Mr. Manish Mohan, Advocate (Mobile No.9999910115) is appointed as an Arbitrator. Leame[4] Arbitr~tor 'Will be paid his fee as per. " the provisions ofthe Fourth Schedule,appende~:to the 1996 Act. "

12 The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms...·..7~0',ll+JV 'R'AJfY;"SHAIillHER J '\:"",,1;',,':, ' NOVEMBER 27, 2018 ·.f "-",> A >'\-,