SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Del) 1317

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Jagran Prakashan Limited - Appellant
Versus
3Y3 Digital Labs Private Limited - Respondent
Arbitration Petition No. 1096 of 2021
Decided On : 13-12-2021

Advocates appeared:
Nihit Dalmia, Advocate, Abhishek Mishra, Advocate

The court's decision emphasized the importance of consent and lack of objection from both parties in appointing a sole arbitrator.

Headnote:

Arbitration - Appointment of Sole Arbitrator - The court allowed the petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a company involved in news print and publication, entered into an advertising services agreement with the respondent. The petitioner claimed that the respondent owed a balance amount for the services provided.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent had not disputed the invocation of arbitration and had not objected to the appointment of a sole arbitrator. With the consent of both parties, the court allowed the petition and appointed a sole arbitrator.

Issues: Dispute over outstanding payment, invocation of arbitration, appointment of sole arbitrator

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of objection from the respondent regarding the appointment of a sole arbitrator and the consent of both parties.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, appointed a sole arbitrator, and directed the arbitrator to ensure compliance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes with the respondent.

2. Petitioner-company claims to be duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and involved in the business of News print and publication, Digital Marketing, Online Media, etc. on pan India basis. Petitioner entered into an advertising services agreement with respondent on 06.04.2018, according to which petitioner and respondent had to work jointly towards utilizing respondent’s real time monetization marketplace software (STACK) and respondent’s smart inventory creation program (AXT).

3. It is claimed in the present petition that in consideration to the agreement, petitioner was entitled to raise invoices upon respondent @ USD 0.663 per E CPM based on ad request generated on DFP (Double Click of Publisher). Accordingly, a total sum of USD 107,169.19 was to be paid by the respondent for the period 01.04.2018 to 30.01.2019 However, respondent paid only USD 44136.69 and the balance amount of USD 61681 or Rs.46,15,435/- is still due to the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner sent multiple reminders and requests and thereafter, on 18.01.2021, petitioner sent a demand notice for making the payment of outstanding amount, in response to which respondent sent an email dated 02.02.2021 wherein it denied to make any further payment.

5. Subsequently, petitioner, in terms of Clause 11 of the Conditions to the Agreement dated 06.04.2018 invoked arbitration in accordance to which a Sole Arbitrator was to be mutually appointed by the parties but respondent rejected the name of the Arbitrator proposed by petitioner. Therefore, the present petition has been filed.

6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner has prayed that sole Arbitrator may be appointed to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

7. Learned counsel for respondent has not disputed invocation of arbitration vide Notice dated 30.07.2021 and has not objected to the appointment of sole Arbitrator for adjudication of dispute between the parties.

8. In view of the above and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, Mr. Amrit Pal Singh Gambhir (Mobile:9810082347) is appointed sole Arbitrator in this petition to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

9. The fee of the learned Arbitrator shall be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

10. The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.

11. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

12. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Arbitrator for information.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top