Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Energy Efficient Services Limited - Petitioner
Versus
Merry Gold Enterprises - Respondent
ARB.P. 1339 of 2022
Decided On : 17-04-2023
Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11(6), Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, M/s. Energy Efficient Services Limited, filed a petition seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes with the respondent, M/s. Merry Gold Enterprises, arising from a contractual agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that despite multiple attempts to serve notice to the respondent, including through various modes and issuance of fresh notices, the respondent failed to appear. Consequently, the court proceeded with the matter ex-parte and appointed Justice (Retd.) R S Chauhan as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
Issues: The issues revolved around the respondent's non-appearance despite service of notice, failure to reconcile stock and deposit money, and the petitioner's invocation of arbitration clauses due to unresolved disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the respondent's consistent non-appearance despite service of notice and the petitioner's fulfillment of requisites for the appointment of an arbitrator, including statutory notice under Section 21 and arbitrability of the disputes.
Final Decision: The court appointed Justice (Retd.) R S Chauhan as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties and directed compliance with Section 12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, along with payment of prescribed fees.
ORDER :
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
The file is taken up today as 14th April, 2023 was declared as a public holiday on account of Birthday of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.
I.A. 19738/2022 (Exemption from filing original documents)
2. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
3. The application stands disposed of.
ARB.P. 1339/2022
4. The instant petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that the respondent has already been served, however, despite service, he has chosen not to appear before this Court. It is submitted that vide order dated 10.3.2023, this Court observed that despite service of notice, there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. It is further submitted that when the petitioner tried to serve the notice dasti to the respondent, he refused to accept the same.
6. This Court has perused the previous Orders passed by this Court. On 25.11.2022, notice was issued to the Respondent by a Predecessor Bench of this Court. On the next date of hearing, i.e. 12.1.2023, it was noted that as per the office report, service upon the respondent was awaited and fresh notice was issued to the respondent through all permissible modes including Dasti.
7. Again on 10.2.2023, when the matter was called for hearing, it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner that the respondent has already been served via WhatsApp and e-mail.
8. On the next date of hearing, i.e. in 10.3.2023, it was observed by this Court that despite service of notice, there was no appearance on behalf of respondent. Accordingly, fresh notice was directed to be issued to the respondent through all permissible modes, including Dasti. Vide the same order it was made clear that in case the respondent fails to appear on the next date of hearing, the matter shall be heard ex-parte.
9. Despite the said order, the respondent did not appear before this Court. In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court is left with no option but to proceed with the matter ex-parte with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is M/s. Energy Efficient Services Limited which is a joint-venture of PSUs of Ministry of Power & Government of India having its registered corporate office at 5th & 6th Floor, NFL Building Core III, Scope Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, 110003. The respondent is M/s. Merry Gold Enterprises having its registered office at C-10 210, MIDC Waluj, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, 431136.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner invited bids for ‘Hiring of Agency’ for the states of Haryana, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, and Punjab for its leading project ‘UJALA’ which is a programme for ‘Unnati Jyoti by Affordable LEDs for All’.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the letters of award were issued to State of Haryana, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Union Territory of Chandigarh, and Punjab along with Contract Prices. The respondent was mandatorily required to submit a summary of stocks received from the petitioner and distribution carried out on weekly basis which was not done by him. It is further submitted that the respondent failed to deposit the entire money collected against the sale and also failed to reconcile the stock which was handed over to him.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in terms of contractual stipulations approached the respondent to amicably resolve the disputes and reconcile and verify the claims and counter claims if any to which there was no outcome.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in terms of letters of award issued a notice dated 25th November 2020 for appointment of adjudicato
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to proceed ex-parte and appoint an arbitrator when the respondent consistently fails to appear despite service of notice, and....
The court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The specific provision for resolution of disputes by arbitration in an agreement can lead to the appointment of an arbitrator if the respondent fails to contest the petition.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between parties when there is an agreement to refer the disputes to arbit....
The court granted the petition for arbitration appointment, emphasizing the respondent's refusal to engage and affirming jurisdiction based on the terms in the invoice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when the respondent deliberately ....
The importance of fulfilling necessary requisites for appointment of an arbitrator under the Arbitration Act and the spirit of the Act to make the resolution process accessible, easier, and more effi....
The main legal point established is the court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes in accordance with the arbitration clause under the General Conditions of Contract.
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
