IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Cinepolis India Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Sarita Multiplexs Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
Arb. P. 251 of 2020 & I.A. 5996 of 2020 and O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 149 of 2020, I.A. 4742 of 2020, I.A. 5960 of 2020, I.A. 5961 of 2020, I.A. 314 of 2021 and I.A. 2074 of 2021
Decided On : 01-03-2021
(Video-Conferencing)
C. Hari Shankar, J.
ARB. P. 251/2020
1. The precise nature of the dispute between the parties already stands recorded in the order dated 26th June, 2020 and, as the parties are mutually agreeable to the disputes being referred to an arbitrator to be appointed by this Court, with O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 149/2020 being decided by the learned arbitrator as an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "1996 Act"), it is not necessary for me to recapitulate the facts.
2. In view of the joint submission by both parties, ARB. P. 251/2020 is disposed of by appointing Mr. J. R. Aryan, a learned retired Additional District Judge (Mobile No.9958697034) as the arbitrator, to arbitrate on the disputes between the parties. The parties may contact the learned arbitrator at the contact details provided hereinabove within 48 hours of receipt of a copy of the present order by the Registry of this Court.
3. The learned arbitrator would fix his fees in consultation with the parties.
4. The learned arbitrator would submit the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the 1996 Act within a week of entering on reference.
5. ARB. P. 251/2020 stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 149/2020
6. By consent, the petitioner is permitted to file this petition before the learned arbitrator as an application under Section 17 of the 1996 Act. The learned arbitrator is requested to decide the present application as expeditiously, and if possible, within a period of four weeks from entering on reference.
7. The interim order dated 26th June, 2020 read with the order dated 25th November, 2020 passed by this Court, shall continue to remain in operation and parties shall abide by the orders to be passed by learned arbitrator in O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 149/2020 treating it to be an application under Section 17 of the 1996 Act.
8. O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 149/2020 stands disposed of accordingly.
I.A. 5996/2020 in ARB. P. 251/2020
I.A. 4742/2020, I.A. 5960/2020, I.A. 5961/2020, I.A. 314/2021 and I.A. 2074/2021 in O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 149/2020
9. In view of the orders passed in the petitions, these applications are disposed of.
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 a retired judge to arbitrate disputes between parties, allowing all issues to remain open for decision under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
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 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 appointed an arbitrator to resolve disputes as per the arbitration clause in the agreement, emphasizing that the parties are bound to arbitrate their disagreements.
Appointment of an arbitrator in instances where the respondent does not object to arbitration is valid under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing the importance of efficient dispute reso....
The court appointed an arbitrator to resolve disputes between parties, emphasizing adherence to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act procedures.
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 permitted a petition to be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to be decided by 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.