IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Delkon Textiles Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 21 of 2023
Decided On : 13-03-2023
Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Appointment of Sole Arbitrator - The court appointed a new arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising from a Purchase Order dated 23rd November, 2017, as the earlier arbitrator withdrew from the proceedings, and the petitioner would suffer prejudice without a new arbitrator.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to substitute an arbitrator and adjudicate the disputes arising from a Purchase Order dated 23rd November, 2017. The earlier arbitrator withdrew from the proceedings, and the petitioner asserted a claim against the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found it appropriate to appoint a new arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising from the Purchase Order dated 23rd November, 2017. Mr. Samir Ali Khan, Advocate, was appointed as the sole arbitrator, and the parties were directed to appear before the arbitrator within 10 days.
Issues: Disagreements and conflicts between the petitioner and the respondents stemming from a Purchase Order dated 23rd November, 2017, appointment of a new arbitrator, and the petitioner's claim against the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the withdrawal of the earlier arbitrator, the petitioner's assertion of a claim against the respondents, and the potential prejudice the petitioner would suffer without a new arbitrator.
Final Decision: The court appointed Mr. Samir Ali Khan, Advocate, as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising from the Purchase Order dated 23rd November, 2017, and directed the parties to appear before the arbitrator within 10 days.
ORDER
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)
I.A. No. 4823/2023 (for Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
The application is disposed of.
O.M.P.(T) (COMM.) 21/2023
1. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) Substitute an Arbitrator under Sections 14 and 15 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, {in place of the earlier Arbitrator Mr. Manoj Kohli who has withdrawn himself from the proceedings), to facilitate the arbitration proceedings and adjudicate the disputes and differences between the parties in Case Reference No. DAC/2759/03-2020 conducted under the aegis of the DIAC and thereafter, pronounce the arbitral award.
(b) Pass any other Order or Orders that this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of equity and justice and the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the disagreements and conflicts between the petitioner and the respondents stem from a Purchase Order dated 23rd November, 2017. It is further submitted that the petitioner herein filed the Arbitration Petition bearing No. 713 of 2019 whereby this Court vide order dated 25th February, 2020 referred the disagreements/disputes arising between the parties to Mr. Manoj Kohli, Advocate to adjudicate upon the same.
3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that subsequent to fulfilment of the necessities the parties herein appeared before the learned arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes. It is further submitted that both, the petitioner and the respondents have filed their respective statements of claim and defence. In the arbitration proceedings, issues were framed, and both parties presented evidence. The matter was thereafter listed for final arguments that were scheduled on 5th November, 2022.
4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Mr. Manoj Kohli, the Sole Arbitrator appointed by this Court, vide e-mail dated 5th November, 2022 withdrew himself from the arbitration proceedings, and the intimation thereto was received by the petitioner from the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) vide letter dated 22nd November, 2022.
5. In light of the foregoing paragraphs, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that to adjudicate upon the disputes and disagreements between the parties that have developed under the Purchase Order dated 23rd November, 2017, a new Arbitrator may be appointed. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the claimant in the proceedings and has asserted a sum of Rs.18,22,723/- claim against the respondents, with interest.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would suffer severe prejudice if a new Arbitrator is not appointed to adjudicate upon the disagreements.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent appearing on advance notice has no objection if this Court allows the prayer made by the petitioner by way of the present petition and appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. As agreed on behalf of the parties, this Court finds it appropriate to appoint a new arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disagreements and disputes arising between the parties qua the Purchase Order dated 23rd November, 2017. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(i) Mr. Samir Ali Khan, Advocate is appointed as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties which have arisen under the Purchase Order dated 23rd November, 2017;
(ii) The learned sole arbitrator, before entering the arbitration reference, shall ensure the compliance of Section 12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996;
(iii) The learned sole arbitrator shall be paid fees as prescribed under The Delhi International Arbitra
The court has the authority to appoint a new arbitrator to adjudicate disputes when the earlier arbitrator withdraws from the proceedings, and the petitioner would suffer prejudice without a new arbi....
A substituted arbitrator can be appointed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, following the demise of the previous arbitrator without objection from the parties involved.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when no arbitrator has been appointed ....
The main legal point established is the court's authority to appoint a substituted Arbitrator under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 following the demise of the previous A....
The court has the authority to appoint a substituted Arbitrator when the initially appointed Arbitrator conveys inability to act due to a conflict of interest.
The court's decision emphasizes the importance of referring disputes to arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not provide for the substitution or termination of the mandate of an arbitrator, and cannot be invoked to substitute an arbitrator appoin....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.