Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
Jatayu Enterprises Services Through Its Authorized Signatory – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India Through Its Managing Director/Chairman & Ors. – Respondents
ARB.P.829 of 2021
Decided on : 10-05-2022
Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitral Tribunal - The court referred the parties to arbitration based on the existence of identical arbitration clauses in multiple agreements and the clear intention of the parties to settle disputes through arbitration.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought appointment of an arbitral Tribunal and reference of disputes pursuant to the agreement for provision of caretaking services. The respondent argued that subsequent agreements were executed, some claims were barred by limitation, and reserved the right to raise disputes before the arbitral tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that all agreements contained identical arbitration clauses, indicating the parties' clear intention to settle disputes through arbitration. Consequently, the court referred the parties to arbitration and appointed a Sole Arbitrator.
Issues: Appointment of Arbitral Tribunal, Reference of Disputes, Existence of Identical Arbitration Clauses, Barred Claims, Reservation of Rights by Respondent
Ratio Decidendi: The existence of identical arbitration clauses in multiple agreements and the clear intention of the parties to settle disputes through arbitration influenced the court's decision to refer the parties to arbitration.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition by referring the parties to arbitration and appointing a Sole Arbitrator.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
1. Petitioner seeks appointment of an arbitral Tribunal and reference of disputes pursuant to the agreement for provision of caretaking services as per agreement dated 12.05.2012 to the Tribunal.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the original agreement dated 12.05.2012 was for a limited period and thereafter fresh agreements were executed from time to time.
3. Respondent has filed an additional affidavit contending that after the initial agreement dated 12.05.2012, agreements were signed in 2014 on a stamp paper dated 16.08.2014 and thereafter signed on 30.04.2015 and
4. Perusal of the agreement filed by the petitioner as also by the respondents shows that all the agreements contain identical arbitration clauses.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that some of the claims are barred by limitation and he reserves the right to raise the dispute with regard to maintainability as well as limitation before the arbitral tribunal.
6. It is thus clear that parties have agreed to settle all their disputes through the process of arbitration. Consequently, the parties are referred to arbitration.
7. With the consent of the parties and without prejudice to their rights and contentions, Mr. J.P.Sengh, Senior Advocate (Mobile # +91 98100 34286) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the claims and counter claims, if any, of the parties.
8. The fees of the learned Arbitrator shall be as per the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
9. The Arbitrator shall furnish the requisite disclosure under section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 within two weeks of entering reference.
10. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
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
