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
| 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) |
(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.
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.
The court affirmed that parties can mutually consent to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, with obligations on the arbitrator to ensure expeditious resolution of disputes.
The court appointed an arbitrator to resolve disputes between parties, emphasizing adherence to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act procedures.
Parties may appoint an arbitrator by mutual agreement, leading to dispute resolution under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing the need for adherence to due process.
The court affirmed that arbitration agreements and interim procedures must adhere to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, highlighting the importance of party consent in reso....
The court appointed a retired judge to arbitrate disputes between parties, allowing all issues to remain open for decision under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court appointed an arbitrator for disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, affirming the parties' agreement on arbitration without addressing the merits of the controversy.
The court affirms the validity of the arbitration agreement and appoints an arbitrator as the parties consented to resolve disputes via arbitration.
The court's decision emphasized the appointment of an arbitrator and the allowance of all contentions to be urged and contested in the arbitral proceedings.
Disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can be referred to arbitration with both parties' agreement, confirming the maintainability of applications before the arbitrator.
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.