Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Cfs Netralaya Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Dr. Roop & Ors. - Respondents
Arbitration Petition No. 111, 112, 203 of 2022, Miscellaneous Application No. 2791 of 2022
Decided On : 18-02-2022
arbitration - Appointment of Sole arbitrator - Section 11 of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 - Lease Deed, Consultancy Services agreements, Joint Venture agreement - Clause 15.2, Clause 11, Clause 22 - Summary: The court heard three petitions seeking appointment of sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996. The disputes and differences arose under the Lease Deed, Consultancy Services agreements, and Joint Venture agreement, with arbitration clauses in Clause 15.2, Clause 11, and Clause 22 respectively. The court appointed Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties, with all issues including consolidation and maintainability of claims remaining open before the arbitrator.
Fact of the Case:
The petitions were filed seeking appointment of sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996. The disputes arose under the Lease Deed, Consultancy Services agreements, and Joint Venture agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court appointed Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties, with all issues including consolidation and maintainability of claims remaining open before the arbitrator.
Issues: Appointment of sole arbitrator, consolidation of disputes, maintainability of claims
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the disputes between the parties should be heard by the same arbitrator to avoid conflicting findings in resolution of the disputes.
Final Decision: Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta was appointed as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties, with all issues including consolidation and maintainability of claims remaining open before the arbitrator.
JUDGMENT
Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The above captioned three petitions have been filed under the provisions of Section 11 of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 seeking appointment of sole arbitrator.
2. Pertinently, parties to these petitions are common and the subject matter of these petitions is also common, therefore, with the consent of learned Senior Counsel for the parties, these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of vide this common judgment.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner in the above captioned petitions [aRB.P. 111/2022 & aRB.P. 112/2022] is a joint venture company between New Delhi Centre for Sight ('NDCFS') and respondent Nos.1 and 2, incorporated under provisions of the Companies act 1956. NDCFS is a company founded by Dr. Mahipal S Sachdev, an eminent ophthalmologist, and Padma Shri awardee, as a leading eye care provider in India.
4. Petitioner in (aRB.P. 203/2022) is a wholly owned subsidiary of New Delhi Centre for Sight ('NDCFS') and is engaged in the business of providing pharma, optical and other related products at the eye care centres owned/run by NDCFS. The said petitioner also provides pharma, optical and other related products at the eye centre operated by CFS Netralaya Private Limited ('CFSNPL') i.e., a joint venture entity of NDCFS and the respondents.
5. Further, petition (aRB.P. 111/2022) has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner seeking appointment of Sole arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes and differences which have arisen under the Lease Deed dated 02nd March 2013 ('Lease Deed'), read with the Memorandum of Understanding dated 26th april 2019 ('2019 agreement') executed between the petitioner and the respondents. Clause 15.2 of the Lease Deed provides for settlement of disputes through arbitration & the Lease Deed and the 2019 agreement are binding on the parties. The Lease Deed has been signed by the petitioner and all the respondents, while the 2019 agreement has been executed by the petitioner along with respondent Nos.1 and 2 (on their behalf as well as on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4).
6. Petition (aRB.P. 112/2022) has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner seeking appointment of Sole arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes and differences which have arisen under the Consultancy Services agreements dated 10th March, 2011 (as amended) executed by the respondents ('Consultancy Services agreements') read with the Memorandum of Understanding dated 26thapril, 2019 ('2019 agreement') executed between the petitioner, NDCFS and the respondents. Clause 11 of the Consultancy Services agreements provides for settlement of disputes through arbitration & the Consultancy Services agreements and the 2019 agreement are binding on the parties. The Consultancy Services agreements and the 2019 agreement have been signed by the petitioner and the respondents.
7. It is submitted that petition (aRB.P. 203/2022) has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner seeking appointment of Sole arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes and differences which have arisen under the Joint Venture agreement dated 10th March, 2011 ('Joint Venture agreement') as amended by and read with First amendment agreement dated 14th august, 2012 to Joint Venture agreement ('First amendment agreement to the Joint Venture agreement') and the Memorandum of Understanding dated 26th april, 2019 ('2019 agreement'). Clause 22 of the Joint Venture agreement provides for settlement of disputes through arbitration & the arbitration clause in the Joint Venture agreements stands incorporated in the First amendment agreement to the Joint Venture agreement.
8. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner further submits that in light of disputes and differences that arose between the petitioner and the respondents, the petitioner in (aRB.P. 111/2022) vide Notice of arbitration dated 22ndapril 2021 invoked arbitration in accordance with Clause 15.2 of the Lease Deed read wi
The court's decision emphasized the importance of appointing the same arbitrator to hear disputes related to the same composite transaction to avoid conflicting findings.
The court underscores the importance of appointing the same arbitrator for disputes arising from related agreements to avoid conflicting awards.
The court emphasized the importance of compliance with the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 and directed the appointment of arbitrators as per the agreement reached by the parties.
The presence of a Dispute Resolution Clause in arbitration agreements necessitates the appointment of arbitrators to resolve disputes, ensuring compliance with statutory requirements.
In the event of the demise of the sole Arbitrator, a new Arbitrator can be appointed to continue the arbitration proceedings in accordance with Sections 14 & 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Ac....
An arbitrator's appointment must adhere to the agreed procedure; failure to do so renders the appointment invalid under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of an arbitrator must be in accordance with the agreed procedure in the contract. If the appointment is not in line with the a....
The necessity to appoint a new Arbitrator is confirmed under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, recognizing the continuation of the arbitration process post-demise of the ori....
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
