Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 5454
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Girish Kathpalia, JJ.
Atc Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
M/s Bd Security Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
FAO(COMM) 249 of 2023 & CM Appls. 62507-511 of 2023
Decided On : 04-12-2023
Mr Arjun Mahajan with Mr Sumit R Sharma, Mr Raghvendra N Budholia, Mr Piyush Gautam and Ms Arpana, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Mr J. Shivam Kumar and Mr Dhiliban Veradarjan, Advocates, for the Respondent.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court has the authority to appoint an arbitrator and issue directions regarding the disposal of assets in arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Headnote:
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Surveillance Agreement and Operation and Management Agreement - The court appointed an arbitrator and directed the appellant to file an affidavit regarding the disposal of assets and to obtain permission from the arbitration tribunal before taking any decision related to the assets.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was against an order passed by the District Judge in an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The disputes between the parties were rooted in two agreements: Surveillance Agreement dated 05.10.2021 and Operation and Management Agreement dated 23.06.2020.
Finding of the Court:
The court appointed an arbitrator, directed the appellant to file an affidavit regarding the disposal of assets, and ordered that the appellant would not be required to deposit Rs.18 lakhs as per the impugned order. Pending applications were closed, and the parties were instructed to act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
Issues: Appointment of arbitrator, disposal of assets, and deposit of Rs.18 lakhs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the agreement of the parties to appoint an arbitrator, file an affidavit regarding the disposal of assets, and the assurance that the appellant would not be required to deposit Rs.18 lakhs as per the impugned order.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of based on the agreed terms, appointing an arbitrator and directing the appellant regarding the disposal of assets, and the appellant was not required to deposit Rs.18 lakhs as per the impugned order. Pending applications were closed, and the parties were instructed to act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral) - This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial-03), Patiala House, New Delhi in an application preferred by the respondent under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [in short, "Act"].
2. We may note that the matter was passed over at request of the counsel for the parties to obtain necessary instructions as to whether the appeal could be disposed of on terms referred to hereafter. The counsel have obtained instructions from their respective clients.
3. We may note that the disputes between the parties are rooted in two agreements i.e., Surveillance Agreement dated 05.10.2021 and Operation and Management Agreement dated 23.06.2020.
4. In the course of proceedings, counsel for the parties agreed, as indicated above, that the instant appeal could be disposed of based on the following directions:
(i) That the operative directions contained in the impugned order dated 09.11.2023 requiring the appellant to deposit Rs.18 lakhs with the concerned court be supplanted with directions requiring the appellant to file an affidavit, which would, inter alia, state that in case any decision is taken to sell, lease or create a charge on its assets located in Delhi, prior permission of the concerned arbitration tribunal would be taken.
(i)(a) In this regard, counsel for the appellant affirms that the appellant's assets are located in Delhi and, presently, are worth more than Rs.18 lakhs.
(ii) To hasten the adjudication of the entirety of the disputes obtaining between the parties, an arbitrator be appointed by the court.
(iii) The directions issued qua the assets, as indicated in paragraph 2 (i) above, will not come in the way of the appellant's day-to-day operations.
5. It is ordered accordingly.
5.1. In terms of the conditions agreed to by the counsel for the parties, Hon'ble Mr Justice R K Gauba, former Judge of this court, is appointed as an arbitrator in the matter.
5.2. Learned arbitrator will be paid fees as per the provisions of the Fourth Schedule appended to the Act.
5.3. Before the learned Arbitrator proceeds, he will make necessary disclosures as required under Section 12 read with the Sixth Schedule of the Act.
5.4. Counsel for the parties will appear before the learned arbitrator in the first instance after obtaining direction in this regard from him.
6. The appeal is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. The effect of this disposal would be that the appellant would not be required to deposit Rs.18 lakhs in the manner prescribed by the impugned order.
7. Pending applications shall stand closed.
8. The parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
