The proper invocation of an Arbitration Agreement and the non-supersession of an existing agreement by a subsequent settlement were central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the 'Master Lease Agreement' dated 13.12.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MLA') executed between the parties.

2. The Arbitration Agreement between the parties is contained in Clause 25.1 of the MLA, which is reproduced herein below:

"25. 1 Dispute Resolution

(i) If any dispute arises between the Parties during the Agreement Term or thereafter, in connection with the validity, interpretation, implementation or alleged material breach of any provision of this Agreement or regarding any question, including the question as to whether the termination of this Agreement by one party has been legitimate, the Parties shall endeavour to settle such dispute amicably within 30 (thirty) days of a dispute being raised by a Party and brought to the attention of the other Party ("Consultation Period").

(ii) However, in case the dispute still persists and is not amicably resolved with the Consultation Period, both the Parties shall enter into conciliation and such proceedings shall be conducted in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as Amended from time to time. Both Parties hereby mutually agree that conciliation proceedings shall be conducted in the most expeditious manner and completed within 3 (three) months of the expiry of the Consultation Period.

(iii) In case the conciliation proceedings also fail, the disputes shall be referred to a panel of three arbitrators and the arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Both Parties shall appoint one arbitrator and the two arbitrators shall appoint the Presiding Arbitrator. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in English and the place of arbitration shall be New Delhi. It is clarified that ay costs associated with the arbitration shall be shared equally between the Parties."

3. In terms of the Arbitration Agreement, the petitioner, on alleged default of the MLA by the respondent, addressed notices dated 17.08.2020 and 23.09.2020 (date on the notice wrongly stated as 23.08.2019) to the respondent. On not receiving any response from the respondent, the petitioner terminated the MLA vide notice dated 12.01.2021.

4. The petitioner thereafter requested the respondent for initiation of conciliation proceedings vide notices dated 08.03.2021 and 21.05.2021. The said notices also remained unheeded by the respondent, forcing the petitioner to file a petition under Section 9 of the Act, being OMP (I) (COMM) 375/2021.

5. This Court vide its interim order dated 17.11.2021, was pleased to restrain the respondent from transferring the possession or ownership or creating any third party interest in respect of the leased vehicles mentioned in the said order.

6. During the pendency of the said petition, and as the respondent had not responded to the request for the conciliation, the petitioner invoked the Arbitration Agreement vide notice dated 08.02.2022.

7. The petitioner thereafter filed a petition under Section 11 of the Act being ARB.P.483/2022, on which notice was issued by this Court vide order dated 25.04.2022.

8. In the meantime, the petition filed under Section 9 of the Act was disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 28.02.2022, directing the interim order to continue till such time that the Arbitral Tribunal is appointed and decides the petitioner's application under Section 17 of the Act seeking interim measures.

9. On 31.05.2022, the petitioner withdrew its petition under Section 11 of the Act stating that the dispute with the respondent has been amicably settled. It is pertinent to note that the respondent was represented on the said date and did not object to the withdrawal of the petition. The Court allowed the petition