IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
OCS Group (india) Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
V4u Consultaants Private Limited – Respondent
Arb.P. 1294 of 2022
Decided On : 28-03-2023
Arbitration - Appointment of Sole Arbitrator - The court appointed Mr. Vineet Dhanda, Advocate as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising under the Agreement dated 14th November, 2019.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a facility management services company, sought appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of disputes arising from non-payment of invoices by the respondent. The respondent failed to reply to the arbitration notice, leading the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the court for appointment of an independent sole arbitrator.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parties intended to refer the disputes to arbitration and appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising under the Agreement dated 14th November, 2019.
Issues: Appointment of Sole Arbitrator, Compliance with Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Payment of Arbitrator's Fees, First Instance Appearance before Arbitrator, Keeping Contentions Open
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the parties' agreement to refer the disputes to arbitration, as well as the failure of the respondent to reply to the arbitration notice. The appointment of a sole arbitrator and the directions regarding compliance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were key factors in the court's decision.
Final Decision: The court appointed Mr. Vineet Dhanda, Advocate as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising under the Agreement dated 14th November, 2019.
ORDER
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") seeking appointment of arbitrator for adjudication of disputes/disagreement between the parties arising qua the agreement dated 14th November, 2019.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at A-502, Fifth Floor, Thane One Corporate Business IT Park, DIL Complex, Opposite Tatvagyan Vidyapeeth, Ghodb under Road, Behind Cine World Mall, Majiwada,Vidyapeeth, Ghodb under Road, Behind Cine World Mall, Majiwada, Tower-B, Jasola, New Delhi-110025. It is further submitted that the petitioner is engaged in the business of providing facility management services such as housekeeping, engineering, operation and maintenance services.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent is a registered Private Limited Company engaged in commercial building and having its registered office at Elegance Tower, Basement-1, Plot-8, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi-110044.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent was rendering its services at Elegance Tower, Jasola, New Delhi and Rectangle-1, Saket, New Delhi and was thereby wanted to appoint a service provider in order to provide facility management services at above-mentioned sites.
5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that pursuant to the negotiations between the parties, the respondent duly appointed the petitioner in order to avail its services on the sites and consequently, executed an agreement dated 14th November, 2019 for a finite period of one year commencing on 1st November, 2019 to 30th October, 2020.
6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the genesis of the dispute between the parties stem from the non-payment of invoices raised subsequent to December, 2019. It is further submitted that the total outstanding amount as on 18th July, 2022 is to the tune of Rs.63,15,669.76/- (Rupees Sixty Three Lac, Fifteen Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Nine and Seventy Six Paisa Only).
7. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that despite numerous communications by the petitioner to the respondent to clear the outstanding payments, the respondent failed to clear the said dues pending towards the petitioner. Being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner withdrew its services with effect from 13th May, 2020.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that all the attempts to resolve the dispute amicably, between the parties, have duly failed. Thus, the petitioner was constrained to invoke the arbitration clause, in accordance with section 21 of the Act, vide legal notice dated 19th July, 2022. It is further submitted that the petitioner vide said notice, nominated its arbitrator for redressal of disagreements between the parties.
9. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent has failed to reply to the abovementioned notice. In view of the same, the petitioner by way of the instant petition has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by virtue of Section 11 of the Act, for appointment of an independent sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes arising between the parties.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently opposed the averments made in the instant petition. However, has no objection, if an independent arbitrator is appointed by this Court to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. As agreed on behalf of the parties, it is evident that the parties intend the Court to refer the disputes to arbitration, by appointing a sole arbitrator. In view of the request made by the parties, to resolve the dispute arising under the Agree
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's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint a Sole Arbitrator and refer disputes arising from a tender to Arbitration in accordance with the provisions of....
The court can appoint an Arbitrator when parties fail to mutually agree, as per agreement provisions and arbitration law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to refer disputes to arbitration when both parties have invoked the arbitration clause and there are admitted arbitral disput....
The main legal point established is the court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 when the parties fail to mutually appoint one,....
The main legal principle established is the enforceability of arbitration clauses in contracts and the court's authority to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to resolve disputes in accordance with the Arbitr....
The court's decision emphasized the arbitrability of disputes and the appointment of a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Premature petitions under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, are not maintainable when a Sole Arbitrator has already been appointed, and unresponsiveness of the current Arbitra....
The court appointed an arbitrator as the parties consented to arbitration under the existing arbitration clause, complying with statutory requirements.
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.