Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
Taxmann Publications Private Limited - Petitioner
Versus
Vineet Sodhani and Another - Respondents
ARB. Pet. No. 234 of 2017
Decided On : 04-07-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Saurabh Kansal.
For the Respondent: Mr. Amresh Anand.
The court emphasized the importance of parties' ability to produce copies of agreements and their admissions, and considered the value of disputes in appointing a sole arbitrator.
Headnote:
Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, due to disputes arising from agreements with the respondents regarding the development and publishing of works.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents' objections to the existence of an arbitration agreement were not sustainable, and appointed an independent sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes.
Issues: Dispute over the existence of an arbitration agreement in the agreements dated 15.01.2013 and 28.10.2014, and the appointment of an arbitrator.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondents' inability to produce copies of the agreements, coupled with their admission of signing the last page, rendered their objections unsustainable. The court also considered the value of the disputes and appointed a sole arbitrator.
Final Decision: Mr. G.P. Thareja, Additional District Judge (Retd.), was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein referred to as ‘the Act’).
2. As per the petitioner, respondent No. 1 as an Author approached the petitioner (a publisher) in the year 2012 with the intention of exploring the possibility of developing and publishing some of his works.
3. An Agreement dated 26.06.2012 was entered into. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 was also inducted as the Author.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that after the Agreement dated 26.06.2012, Agreements dated 15.01.2013 and 28.10.2014 were signed between the parties.
5. Disputes have arisen. Notice dated 16.02.2017 was issued by the petitioner under section 11 of the Act, nominating their arbitrator and calling upon the respondents to nominate their arbitrator in terms of the Arbitration Agreement.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this petition contending that there is an arbitration agreement contained in Agreements dated 15.01.2013 and 28.10.2014. The disputes are sought to be resolved in terms of Agreement dated 28.10.2014.
7. The Arbitration Agreement as contained in Clause 14 of the Agreement dated 28.10.2014, inter-alia, reads as under:-
“14. Court's Jurisdiction: In case of any dispute arising as to interpretation of terms of this agreement or in case of violation of this agreement by any party, the matter shall:–
(a) first of all, be attempted to be solved amicably through mediation or conciliation.
(b) if said attempts fail, the matter will be referred for arbitration to a tribunal comprising of three members, one member being appointed by publisher, second one being appointed by author and third one to be appointed by the first two members.
Subject to above, all legal proceedings shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction.”
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that though Agreements were executed on the dates, as referred to by the petitioners, he disputes the contents of Agreements dated 15.01.2013 and 28.10.2014. He submits that the Agreements executed on 15.01.2013 and 28.10.2014, were on the same lines as the Agreement dated 26.06.2012.
9. He submits that the Agreement dated 26.06.2012 is not denied, however, the dispute is with regard to Agreements dated 15.01.2013 and 28.10.2014. He submits that both the Agreements did not contain an Arbitration Clause. Learned counsel also admits that the signatures appearing on the last page of Agreements dated 15.01.2013 and 28.10.2014 as that of the respondents.
10. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner, in the first notice dated 03.01.2017, had though referred to the Agreement dated 28.10.2014, but had not specifically stated that there was an arbitration clause or proceedings under the Act, would be taken, on the contrary, the petitioner had stated that petitioner would pursue appropriate legal proceedings in the Court of Law implying thereby that there was no Arbitration Agreement.
11. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents do not have a copy of the Agreements dated 15.01.2013 and 28.10.2014, as none were supplied to the respondents.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Agreement dated 15.01.2013 is apparently a forged document inasmuch as the address mentioned on the document dated 15.01.2013 of the respondents is that of a property that they neither owned nor possessed at that point of time. He submits that the said property was acquired by the respondents much later towards the end of 2013.
13. Learned counsel, however, fairly concedes that the document annexed as Agreement dated 26.06.2012 is not disputed by the respondent.
14. The dispute raised by the respondent is with regard to the existence of an arbitration clause in the Agreements dated 15.01.2013 and 28.10.2014. The respondents candidly admit that they do not have copies of the Agreement in their possession.
15. It is a
