SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Campbell Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Aria Hotels and Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
Arb.P. 161 of 2021 and IA 1381 of 2021 (Section 151 CPC), O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 36 of 2021 and IAs 1408-09 of 2021 (Section 151 CPC) and O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 24 of 2021, IAs 1130 of 2021 (Section 151 CPC) and 1430 of 2021 (Section 151 CPC)
Decided On : 29-01-2021




The arbitration process is governed by mutual consent, allowing parties to appoint an arbitrator and seek interim relief under Sections 12(2) and 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 12(2) and Section 17 - Disputes between parties referred to arbitration - Consent of parties noted - Retired judge appointed as arbitrator to handle claims and counterclaims, with fees to be settled among parties - Ad interim direction issued pending arbitration decision, subject to outcome - Court refrains from expressing opinion on merits. (Paras 1-3)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, Campbell Restaurant Pvt. Ltd., initiated multiple petitions against Aria Hotels and Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., seeking arbitration for disputes arising from their dealings. After discussions, the parties mutually agreed upon the appointment of a retired judge as the arbitrator for the resolution of their disputes.

Findings of Court:
The Court appointed a retired judge to arbitrate and instructed both parties to present their claims within one week, making it clear that the Court does not opine on any merits of the case yet.

Issues: Whether the disputes can be referred to arbitration and what interim measures can be taken until the arbitrator makes a decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the importance of referring disputes to arbitration per the Arbitration Act and allows interim measures pending arbitration while maintaining neutrality on the case's merits.

Result: All petitions disposed of as per the terms outlined.

Table of Content
1. court appoints an arbitrator by consent of parties. (Para 1)
2. court does not express opinion on merits. (Para 2)
3. all petitions disposed of as stated. (Para 3)
4. pending applications disposed of. (Para 4)

ORDER (Oral)

(Video-Conferencing)

C. Hari Shankar, J. After some arguments, these petitions are disposed of, by consent between learned counsel for the parties, in the following terms:

(i) This Court appoints Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sistani, a retired Judge of this Court, whose name was suggested, ad idem, by learned counsel for both parties, as the arbitrator, to arbitrate on the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent. The fees of the learned arbitrator would be settled by the learned arbitrator in consultation with the parties.

(ii) All disputes between the parties are permitted to be referred to the learned arbitrator, whether in the nature of claims or counterclaims. The learned arbitrator would furnish the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to "the 1996 Act"), within a period of one week of entering on the reference. The contact details of the learned arbitrator are as under:

    AB-85, Shahjahan Road,

    New Delhi-110011

    Mobile No.9871300034

    Email ID: sistanilaw@gmail.com

(iii) OMP (I) (COMM) 36/2021 and OMP (I) (COMM) 24/2021 shall be treated as applications under Section 17 of the 1996 Act and be decided by the learned arbitrator in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity to both sides. For this purpose, the parties are directed to present copies of the said petitions to the learned arbitrator, within one week of the learned arbitrator entering on the reference. Completion of pleadings on the applications, if required, would abide by orders to be passed by the learned arbitrator in that regard.

(iv) Prayer (a) in OMP (I) (COMM) 24/2021 reads thus:

    "a) Restrain the Respondent and/or its directors, employees, agents, servants etc. from entering or interfering in any manner or creating obstacle in utilisation and/or use and occupation of the said premises by the Petitioner or any person/sub-licensee permitted by the Petitioner;"

Pending the decision of the learned arbitrator on the aforesaid two petitions, treating them as applications under Section 17 of the 1996 Act, there shall be an ad interim direction in terms of prayer (a) in OMP (I) (COMM) 24/2021. This shall, however, remain subject to the outcome of the decision of learned Arbitrator on the aforesaid two applications under Section 17 of the 1996 Act.

2. This Court makes it clear that though detailed arguments on merits were advanced before me by learned counsel for both sides, it does not express any opinion on merits on one way or the other. The aforesaid directions have been issued by consent. All issues are open for consideration and decision by the learned arbitrator in accordance with law.

3. All these petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

4. Pending applications, in these petitions, do not, accordingly, survive for consideration by this Court and are therefore disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top