Back
2021 Supreme(Del) 661
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
AMIT BANSAL, J.
Arun Srivastava - Petitioner
Versus
M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd. - Respondent
CM(M) No. 1520 of 2018
Decided On : 09-11-2021
For the Petitioner: Mr. Randhir Jain with Mr. Bhoop Singh.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ankit Chaturvedi with Mr. Neeraj Sood.
Point of Law: When an arbitration agreement exists between the parties it is obligatory for the courts to refer the parties to arbitration in terms of arbitration agreement.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 8 - Code of Civil Procedure, (CPC), 1908 - Order 12 Rule 6 - Maintainability of petition - Arbitration clause - Whether documents as sought by the respondent from the petitioner vide email were supplied by the petitioner to the respondent is to be decided by the Arbitrator in the Arbitration Proceedings.
Finding of the Court: Present petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the impugned order allowing the Section 8 application would not be maintainable. All grounds in respect of existence and validity of the arbitration clause can be raised by the petitioner before the Arbitral Tribunal - Petitioner has not denied the existence of the arbitration agreement. The only case put by the petitioner is that in light of the admission made by the respondent, there is no arbitrable dispute to be referred for arbitration - No grounds have been made for interference with the impugned order.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the judgment dated 04th August, 2018 passed by the Additional District Judge – 05, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Suit No.1462/2017, whereby the application filed on behalf of the respondent/ defendant under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has been allowed.
2. This matter came up for hearing before this Court on 11th December, 2018 when notice was issued. Subsequently an application for early hearing was filed on behalf of the petitioner which was allowed by this Court on 9th September, 2021. The respondent has filed a reply and the petitioner has also filed a rejoinder.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are set out hereinafter:
3.1 On 20th October, 2019, a Letter of Intent was issued by the respondent to the petitioner for supply, installation and commissioning of electric works at the District Hospital Project at Gurgaon, Bhiwani and Hissar in Haryana. Letter of Intent was duly executed and signed between the parties at New Delhi. It was the contention of the petitioner that the respondent wrongly withheld an amount of Rs.12,24,181/- in respect of bills raised by the petitioner on the respondent which led to filing of a recovery suit for an amount of Rs.17,26,000/- before the court of ADJ on 22nd September, 2017. In the said suit, an application under Section 8 of the Act was filed on behalf of the respondent seeking that the parties may be referred to arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the Letter of Intent. On 22nd December, 2017, an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (CPC), 1908, was filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking decree on the basis of admissions made by the respondent.
3.2 The application filed on behalf of the respondent under Section 8 of the Act was allowed by the impugned order observing – holding as follows:
(i) There was a comprehensive arbitration clause between the parties in terms of which the clear intention of the parties was reflected that the disputes between them had to be resolved through arbitration.
(ii) The application under Section 8 of the Act was filed by the respondent before filing the written statement.
(iii) The petitioner had admitted the receipt of Annexures 1, 2 and 3 to the Letter of Intent and therefore, a legally binding contract was entered into between the parties, even if the said annexures did not bear the signatures of the petitioner.
(iv) Petitioner has nowhere denied the existence of arbitration agreement contained in the documents annexed with the Letter of Intent.
(v) In a similar matter being CS(COMM) 601/2017 titled as A.S. Nutech Electrical Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., this Court has already referred the matter for arbitration and the petitioner is one of the directors in the said plaintiff company.
(vi) The petitioner had deliberately withheld the proceedings in CS(COMM) 601/2017 as well as the complete documents that were annexures to the Letter of Intent.
(vii) Judgment of this Court in Fenner India Ltd. V. Bhramputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Ltd., 227 (2016) DLT 285 is not applicable to the facts of the case as there is no specific admission on the part of the respondent.
4. In view of the Section 8 application filed by the respondent being allowed, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC was dismissed as being infructuous.
5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to an email dated 10th November, 2016 (page 69 of the electrical file) to contend that the same constitutes an acknowledgement of liability of the respondent of a sum of Rs.12,24,181/- and that all documents as sought by the respondent had already been supplied by the petitioner to the respondent and therefore, there was no reason to withhold the aforesaid amount. Counsel for the petitioner ha
