Neelam Sisodia v. India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.

Delhi High Court · 29 Aug 2016 · 2016:DHC:8353
V. Kameswar Rao; Vibhu Bakhru
ARB.P. 242/2016
2016:DHC:8353
civil other

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, due to the respondent's failure to do so as per the contract's arbitration clause.

Full Text
Translation output
2016:DHC:8353 $-38 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ARB.P. 242/2016
NEELAM SISODIA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Alok Gupta, Ms. Pumima Maheshwari and Mr. D.K. Singh, Advocates
VERSUS
INDIA TOURISM DEVLOPMENT COPRPORATION LTD. Respondent
Through: Ms. Vamika Singhal and Ms.Unnati Misra, Advocates
- CORAM;
'V HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
28.04.2016 lA 5152/2016 Exemption allowedsubjectto allJust exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
ARB.P. 242/2016
Notice.
Learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and seeks and allowed four weeks time to file reply. Rejoinder thereto be filed within one week thereafter.
Re-notify on 28^ July, 2016. y.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J APRIL 28,2016/jg
Through: Ms Pumima Maheshwari and Mr D. K. Singh, Advocates.
VERSUS
Through: Mr Deepak Jain with Mr Pradeep K. B. and Ms Jaspreet Aulakh, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
28.07.2016 This is a petitionunder Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the Act'). It is stated that the respondent floated a tender for supply of "Cotton Drill" to the Delhi based Hotels & Catering
Establishment units of the respondent. The Petitionerparticipated in the said tender and was declared L-1. Accordingly, the contract for supply of Cotton
Drill was awarded to the petitioner. Certain disputes have arisen in respect of the said contract. It is not disputed that the disputes arising from the
Contract are liable to be settled in accordance with the Arbitration Clause in the said Contract, which reads as under:-
"3. ARBITRATION CLAUSE;- In the event of a dispute arising between the contractor and
ITDC during the currency of the contract or after the conclusion thereof, the same shall be referred to the sole
:3' arbitration of the C&MD, ITDC, or officer appointed by him shall be final and legally arbitration binding on the parties and there will be no objection to his effect that the officer who has been appointed by Chairman & Managing Director, ITDC is an employee of the corporation or that in case of his duty with official matters, he had expressedany opinion on the subject.
Any dispute arising out of the contract will fall under jurisdiction ofUnionterritoryofDelhi."
The petitioner has invoked the arbitration by a notice dated
23.03.2016. However, the respondent has not appointed the Sole Arbitrator as yet. The learned counsel for both the parties request that the Arbitrator may be appointed.
Accordingly, Mr V.K. Malhotra, ADJ (Retd), (Mobile
No.9810619528) is proposed to be appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. The
Registry may communicate the copy of this order to MrMalhotra, Arbitrator for necessary disclosure under Section 12(1)ofthe Act.
List on 29.08.2016. vw VIBHU BAKHRU, J JULY 28, 2016
T MK
$-5
Through: Ms Pumima Maheswari, Advocate.
VERSUS
Through: Mr Deepak Jain with Mr PradeepK.
B, Ms Jaspreet Awlakh and Ms Mahima Deepak, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
29.08.2016 By an order dated 28.07.2016, Mr V. K. Malhotra, ADJ (Retired) was proposed to appoint as a Sole Arbitrator. However, the necessary disclosure under Section 12 ofthe Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996t has not been received as yet.
List on 13.09.2016.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J AUGUST 29,2016 MK
JUDGMENT