Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Airone Charters Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Jetsetgo Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
ARB.P. 245 of 2020 & I.A. 7099 of 2020
Decided On : 12-10-2021
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 21,11(6) and 23(2A) - Aircraft Charter Agreements - Disputes - Counter-claims - Petitioner claims to be an intermediary, which arranges for aircraft charters for its clients, from third parties - Respondent provides charter flights to its customers - Three ACAs, dated were executed between the petitioner and respondent - Aircraft, to which ACAs related, were Legacy 650 Tail Number VT-AOK, Legacy 650 Tail Number VT-AOL and Cessna XLS Tail Number VT-AON - Each agreement related to one aircraft - Under each of these agreements, respondent agreed to - Charter aircraft covered by agreement, belonging to third parties, through petitioner, for period of one year - Whether reference of petitioner’s claims to arbitration, was a remedy available to it in law.
Finding of the Court : sole surviving objection is regarding maintainability of a single arbitration petition, for reference of disputes relatable to three ACAs, to arbitration - Claim was trifurcated consequent on directions issued by learned Arbitral Tribunal - Having said that, decision in Duro Felguera clearly requires independent arbitrations for each of ACAs - Needless to say, should parties be agreeable to petitioner’s claims being decided by existing Arbitral Tribunal comprising Hon’ble Mudgal, Sodhi and Saron, JJ, that would be an eminently advisable course to pursue - It would also aid in expeditious disposal of arbitral proceedings - This order would not inhibit parties from doing so - Present petition stands allowed in aforesaid terms and to aforesaid extent with no orders as to costs
JUDGMENT :
1. Three Aircraft Charter Agreements (in short, “ACAs”) dated 11th August, 2017, were executed between the petitioner and the respondent. Disputes arose. They stand referred, through the intervention of this Court, to an arbitral tribunal comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal (Retd.), Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron (Retd.) and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.S. Sodhi (Retd.). The respondent is the claimant therein, and the present petitioner, the respondent. The petitioner desired to file counter-claims in the said proceedings. Permission was denied, reserving liberty with the petitioner, however, to avail all such remedies as are available to it in law. The petitioner issued a notice, invoking arbitration, to the respondent, under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the 1996 Act”). The petitioner suggested that its claims be referred to the arbitral tribunal comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal (Retd.), Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron (Retd.) and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.S. Sodhi (Retd.), which was already seized of the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent, albeit at the instance of the respondent. The respondent demurred. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act, for referring the claims of the petitioner to the learned arbitral tribunal comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal (Retd.), Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron (Retd.) and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.S. Sodhi (Retd.).
2. The record has been perused, and learned Counsel heard at length. Mr Manish Sharma appeared for the petitioner, and Mr Amit Sibal, learned Senior Counsel, for the respondent.
Facts
3. The petitioner claims to be an intermediary, which arranges for aircraft charters for its clients, from third parties. The respondent provides charter flights to its customers. Three ACAs, dated 11th August, 2017, were executed between the petitioner and the respondent. The aircraft, to which the ACAs related, were Legacy 650 Tail Number VT-AOK, Legacy 650 Tail Number VT-AOL and Cessna XLS Tail Number VT-AON. Each agreement related to one aircraft. Under each of these agreements, the respondent agreed to charter the aircraft covered by the agreement, belonging to third parties, through the petitioner, for the period of one year.
4. Clauses 26 of the ACAs, which was identical in all the ACAs, read thus:
26.1 This Agreement and the rights and obligations of the parties hereunder shall be construed and interpreted in performed in accordance with Indian Substantive and Procedural law, applicable to Agreements made and to be performed entirely therein.
26.2 The Parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve any dispute, difference or claim arising out of or in relation it this Agreement through mutual discussion. In case it is not resolved within thirty (30) days from receipt of the written notice (setting out the dispute or claim) the other party, the complaining party may issue a notice of reference, invoking settlement of such disputes through Arbitration.
26.3 All disputes between parties shall be subject to exclusive jurisdiction of New Delhi, India only.
26.4 Arbitration: Any and all disputes ("Disputes") arising out of or in relation to or in connection with this Agreement between the Parties or relating to the performance or nonperformance of the rights and in New Delhi, India in accordance with the terms of Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (as amended by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015]. The language used in the arbitral proceedings shall be English. Arbitration shall be conducted by three (3) arbitrators, each Party appointing one Arbitrator and both Parties having to agree on the third Arbitrator to be appointed by the one Arbitrator appointed by each party as per Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [as ame
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
