IMPORTANT POINT
The binding nature of orders passed by the Supreme Court, the importance of judicial discipline, and the requirement to comply with court orders.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Jain, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "said Act") read with Section 13(1) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Appellant has prayed that the impugned judgment dated 01.03.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP (Comm.) No.97/2016 be set aside and consequently, also the Award dated 08.05.2015, passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in the arbitration captioned "Value Line Interiors Private Ltd. vs. Unison Hotels Pvt. Ltd".

2. Appellant is engaged in the hospitality sector and is operating and managing a hotel in New Delhi, being run under the name and style of "The Grand". There was an agreement between the appellant and the respondent for carrying out interior works at said hotel. Certain disputes arose between the parties in or around the year 2011 which led to the invoking of arbitration by the respondent. It is not in dispute that the respondent filed an application under Section 11(6) of said Act before this Court and resultantly, Sole Arbitrator was appointed vide order dated 09.10.2012. The adjudication was to be done under the aegis of and as per the Rules of the Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre (now known as Delhi International Arbitration Centre) (DIAC).

3. As per the appellant, the Sole Arbitrator had called upon the parties to appear before him on 09.11.2012 for a preliminary hearing, but none appeared. DIAC had, in the meanwhile, issued one more communication dated 30.10.2012 to the respondent inviting it to file its statement of claim within the prescribed period. Another communication was sent to respondent on 05.02.2013 calling upon it to do the same within 15 days, else it would result in closure of the proceedings on the assumption that it was not interested in continuing with such proceedings. According to the appellant, since the respondent did not file any Statement of Claim within the aforesaid period, it presumed that the respondent was no longer interested in continuing with the proceedings.

4. Be that as it may, fact remains that the respondent filed its Statement of Claim on 22.01.2014. Accordingly, appellant was asked to file its Statement of Defence and/or counter-claim. Since such communication was received by the appellant after almost one year, it requested DIAC to furnish information as regards the previous correspondence and communications between DIAC and respondent. However, instead of providing any such details of any such communication, DIAC granted another period of 30 days to the appellant to file its Statement of Defence vide its letter dated 06.03.2014. Appellant again insisted DIAC to provide all such details, as already demanded and sent one more letter dated 29.03.2014. DIAC vide its letter dated 15.04.2014 informed the appellant that its right to file Statement of Defence and/or counter- claim had been closed and appellant was also called upon to pay its share of the Arbitrator's fee.

5. Appellant, eventually, appeared before the Arbitrator on 16.07.2014 and raised same objection but instead of adjudicating said objections, the Arbitrator directed the appellant to file its Statement of Defence and counter-claim, if any, within a period of 30 days, subject to cost of Rs.10,000/-.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 16.07.2014, appellant preferred a petition before this Court under Section 40(2) read with Section 25(a) and Section 32(2)(c) of the said Act. Said petition was disposed of by this Court on 15.10.2014 observing that the Arbitrator was empowered to address the concerns of the appellant and to pass appropriate orders and accordingly, the petition was dismissed. Appellant accordingly filed an application before the Arbitrator which also did not find favour and the same was dismissed by the Arbitrator on 31.10.2014 and the right of the appellant to file the Statement of Defence was closed and the matter was scheduled for recording evidence of the respondent.

7. App