IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Srei Equipment Finance Limited - Appellant
Versus
Rugby Renergy Private Ltd. & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 2724 of 2023 & CM APPL. 10506 of 2023
Decided On : 13-10-2023
Arbitration - Impleadment - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6) - Master Lease Agreement, Wind Business, Insolvency Proceedings, Term Sheet Agreement, Power Purchase Agreement - 1.11.2016 - 03.01.2023 - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking to challenge the order of the Arbitral Tribunal, which rejected the application for impleadment of the Petitioner in the arbitration proceedings between Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2, holding that the Arbitral Tribunal is not vested with the powers under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act to implead a third party which is not a signatory to the agreement in respect of the disputes referred for arbitration.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, an equipment finance company, sought to challenge an Order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, which rejected its application for impleadment in the arbitration proceedings between Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2. The Petitioner claimed rentals from Respondent No.2 under a Master Lease Agreement for wind business equipment.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Arbitral Tribunal is not vested with the powers to implead a third party not a signatory to the agreement in the arbitration proceedings.
Issues: Whether the Petitioner should be impleaded in the arbitration proceedings between Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2, and the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Arbitral Tribunal is not empowered to implead a third party not a signatory to the agreement in the arbitration proceedings, and the scope of interference under Article 227 is limited to matters that are completely perverse.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court declined to interfere with the order of the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting the Petitioner's application for impleadment in the arbitration proceedings.
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner seeks to challenge an Order dated 03.01.2023 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal which has been constituted for adjudicating disputes between Respondent No.1/Rugby Renergy Private Limited and Respondent No.2/India Power Corporation Limited.
2. The facts leading to the present the case are as under:
i. The Petitioner is an equipment finance company. The operations of the Petitioner company are being conducted by an Administrator appointed by the Reserve Bank of India.
ii. It is stated that the Petitioner has given on lease, equipment to Respondent No.2 which manufactures electricity by using wind energy. For the said purpose, a master lease agreement had been entered into between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 on 01.11.2016. The said agreement has its own dispute resolution mechanism under Clause 21. It is stated that the Master Lease Agreement dated 01.11.2016 which was in force till 03.04.2023 was entered into by the Petitioner with Respondent No 2, whereby the Petitioner had agreed to give the wind business equipment on lease to Respondent No.2 in return for payment from the receivables generated from the operation of the said wind business. The wind business was operated on lands owned by the State of Gujarat, which were leased to Enercon India Limited which was further sub-leased to Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 had also entered into power purchase agreement with Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited for sale of the power produced via operation of the wind business.
iii. An Operations and Maintenance Agreement was also entered into by the Petitioner with Wind World India Limited for providing Operations and Maintenance support for the leased wind assets of the Petitioner and regular monthly charges for the same are paid by the Petitioner out of lease revenues received from Respondent No.2.
iv. Respondent No.1 herein entered into a Term Sheet Agreement dated 20.01.2021 with the Petitioner for sale of this wind business and on the very same dated Respondent No.1 herein also entered into another Term Sheet agreement with Respondent No.2 herein for transfer of wind business contracts being the Sub Lease Agreement with Enercon India Limited and the Power Purchase Agreement with the Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited.
v. Insolvency proceedings were initiated by the RBI against the Petitioner under Section 227 read with Section 239(2)(zk) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, by filing an Application bearing No. CP (IB)294/KB/2021 before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Kolkata and the said application was admitted on 08.10.2021.
vi. On 29.07.22, upon the commencement of the insolvency proceedings, Respondent No.2 expressed its inability to proceed ahead with the Term Sheet Agreement dated 20.01.2021 with Respondent No.1 which was contended to have come to an end due to efflux of time.
vii. It is stated that a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, being OMP(I)(COMM) No.236/2022, was preferred by the Respondent No.1 against Respondent No.2 before this Court and Order dated 03.08.2022 was passed by this Court directing Respondent No.2 to maintain status quo with regard to the revenue arising out of the Wind Power Project from 01.01.2021 onwards, as an interim measure.
viii. Subsequently, vide Order dated 06.09.2022, Respondents No.1 and 2 were referred to arbitration by this Court before the learned Arbitral Tribunal and an interim order was passed on 03.08.2022 which was to continue till the first date of hearing before the learned Arbitrator. In view of the above proceedings, Respondent No.2 vide letter dated 27.09.22 expressed its inability to pay the lease rentals payable from the receivables any further to the Petitioner as payable under the Master Lease Agreement.
ix. It is stated that the Petitioner was receiving rentals from Respondent No.2, and that the Petitioner's interests are directly and vitally affected in the arbitration proceedings between Respondent N
Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Ptg. Co. Ltd. v. Ram Tahel Ramnand
Ameet Lal Chand Shah & Ors. v. Rishabh Enterprises & Anr.
Bathutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarte
Chloro Controls India Private Limited v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. & Ors.
Deep Industries Limited v. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited & Anr.
Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate Private Limited
SBP & Company v. Patel Engineering Limited & Anr.
Once arbitration has commenced in the arbitral tribunal, parties have to wait until the award is pronounced unless, of course, a right of appeal is available to them under Section 37 of the Act even ....
Point of Law- The Arbitration Act itself gives various procedures and forums to challenge the appointment of an arbitrator. The framework clearly portrays an intention to address most of the issues w....
The supervisory jurisdiction of courts over arbitral tribunal orders is extremely limited, allowing interference only in cases of patent lack of jurisdiction.
Point of law: Drill of Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is that where a Section 16 application is dismissed, no appeal is provided and the challenge to the Section 16 applicat....
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.