Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
M/s Sudhir Power Projects Ltd - Appellant
Versus
M/s Unipower Projects Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
Arbitration Petition No. 1199 of 2021
Decided On : 30-03-2022
Arbitration Clause - Appointment of Arbitrator - The court allowed the petition for the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court found that the exchange of emails and the Purchase Order constituted a written agreement between the parties, satisfying the requirement of a written agreement as per Section 7(4)(b) of the arbitration act. The disputes were referred to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) for arbitration.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, based on an arbitration clause in a Purchase Order sent to the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the petition, finding that the exchange of emails and the Purchase Order constituted a written agreement between the parties, satisfying the requirement of a written agreement as per Section 7(4)(b) of the arbitration act. The disputes were referred to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) for arbitration.
Issues: The main issue was whether the exchange of emails and the Purchase Order constituted a written agreement between the parties as required under Section 7(4)(b) of the arbitration act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the exchange of emails and the Purchase Order constituted a written agreement between the parties, satisfying the requirement of a written agreement as per Section 7(4)(b) of the arbitration act.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the disputes were referred to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) for arbitration.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. - Petitioner seeks appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the arbitration & Conciliation act, 1996.
2. It is contended that the parties had entered into an agreement and a work order was placed on the respondent dated 11.06.2021 which contains an arbitration clause.
3. The arbitration Clause 19 reads as under: -
'19. Dispute Resolution / arbitration & jurisdiction:
any dispute or difference whatsoever arising betweenthe parties out of or relating to the construction, meaning, scope operation or effect of this contract or the validity or the breach thereof shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 and the award made in pursuance thereof shall be binding on the parties. The dispute shall bereferred to the arbitration of Sole arbitrator to be appointed by CMD/MD of SPPL, whereas Seat and venue of the arbitration shall be New Delhi/Gurugram and the proceedings shall be undertaken in English.'
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the registered office of both petitioner as well as respondent is in Delhi and accordingly petitioner has exercised the option to approach the Courts at Delhi.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier a Purchase Order was sent by email dated 11.06.2021 and all the terms and conditions were contained in the Purchase Order and Respondents were requested to accept the same. However, the Respondent by their email dated 12.06.2021 raised certain issues with regard to the terms of payment.
6. Subsequently a revised Purchase Order was sent on 17.06.2021 revising the terms of payment. Clause 19 of both the Purchase Orders remained the same. It is stated that by e-mail dated 17.06.2021, respondent accepted the Purchase Order with the terms mentioned therein.
7. Only objection raised by the respondent in these proceedings to the appointment of an arbitrator is that is there is no written agreement between the parties. The email by which the Purchase Order and the terms therein have been accepted are not denied.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the purchase of order referred to by the petitioner is merely a work order and not a purchase order.
9. Perusal of the Purchase Order dated 11.06.2021 shows that the same bears a heading 'work order/contract'. The email with which the same has been sent mentions the same as a Purchase Order. However, nothing really turns on the description of the document as the said document contains several terms and conditions and one of the terms being clause 19 containing the arbitration Clause extracted hereinabove.
10. Further the petitioner has also placed on record the communication dated 13.09.2021 sent by the respondent acknowledging the work order dated 11.06.2021 referred to herein above.
11. Section 7 of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996, inter-alia, stipulates that an arbitration agreement is in writing, if it is contained in exchange of letters, italics telegrams or other means of telecommunications including communication through electronic means.
12. The very fact that petitioner had sent a Purchase Order contacting the terms and conditions of the contract requesting the respondent to accept the same and the said email and Purchase Order is admittedly received by the respondent and respondent by their email have not only acknowledged the receipt but specifically stated that they accept the PO along with its terms.
13. Said exchange of correspondence clearly satisfies the requirement of a written agreement between the parties as envisaged in Section 7 (4) (b) of the arbitration act. None of the emails or the communication placed on record by the petitioner are denied by the respondent.
14. In view of the above, this petition is allowed.
15. The disputes are referred to the Delhi International arbitrationCentre (DIaC), which would appoint an arbitrator to arbitrate the disputes. The arbitration shall take place under the aeg
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an exchange of emails and a Purchase Order can constitute a written agreement between parties, satisfying the requirement of a written agreeme....
The exchange of emails between parties constituted a valid written arbitration agreement, satisfying legal requirements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court emphasized the importance of the written arbitration agreement and the designation of venue as the juridical seat of arbitral proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 based on the existence of undisputed ....
The court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
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
