The court ruled that the appointment of arbitrators from the respondent's panel was valid, maintaining that established legal precedent surrounding impartiality does not support the petitioner's claims for termination.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)--The present petition under Section 14 read with Section 12 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as the `Act'] seeks a declaration that the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal appointed by the Respondent be terminated and a substitute Arbitrator be appointed in accordance with provisions of the Act.

2. The dispute between the parties arises out of a Licence Agreement dated 07th June, 2016 whereby the commercial property situated at Janpath Metro Station (bearing space ID-Janpath_l) was licenced by the Respondent to the Petitioner. The arbitration agreement is contained in Article 8 of the said Agreement, which reads as follows:

"ARTICLE-8: DISPUTE RESOLUTION

8.1 Arbitration: All disputes relating to this agreement or claims arising out of or relating to this agreement or breach, termination or the invalidity thereof or on any issue whether arising during the progress of the services or after the completion or abandonment thereof or any matter directly or indirectly connected with this agreement shall be referred to Arbitrator(s) appointed by Director, DMRC on receipt of such request from either party, after signing of the Agreement. Matters to be arbitrated upon shall be referred to a sole arbitrator if the total value of the claim is up to Rs.50 lakhs and a panel of three arbitrators, if total value of claims is more than Rs.50 lakhs. DMRC shall provide a panel of three Arbitrators which may also include DMRC officers for claims up to Rs.50 lakhs and a panel of five Arbitrators which may also include DMRC officers for claims of more than Rs.50 lakhs. Licensee shall have to choose the sole Arbitrator from the panel of three and/or one Arbitrator from the panel of five in case three Arbitrators are to be appointed. DMRC shall also choose one Arbitrator from this panel of five arbitrators and the two so chosen will choose the third arbitrator from the panel only. The Arbitrators shall be appointed within a period of 30 days from date of' receipt of written notice/demand of appointment of Arbitrator from either party.

8.2. The decision of sole Arbitrator/panel of Arbitrators shall be binding on all the parties. The cost of arbitration shall be borne by respective parties equally. The venue of such arbitration shall be Delhi/New Delhi. The parties agree to comply with the awards resulting from arbitration and waive their rights to any form of appeal insofar as such waiver can validly be made.

8.3. Rules governing Arbitration proceedings: The Arbitration proceedings shall be governed by Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended from time to time including provisions in force at the time the references are made. During the pendency of arbitration proceedings, the Licensee shall continue to perform and make due payments to DMRC as per the License Agreement.

3. On account of the nationwide lockdown due to the novel coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic, the Petitioner terminated the Licence Agreement vide letter dated 10th April, 2020. The Respondent, in response, sent a communication dated 18th August, 2020 seeking eviction of the Petitioner from the premises.

4. Since disputes arose between the parties, the Petitioner invoked the arbitration clause and vide notice dated on 25th August, 2020, nominated one Mr. Ashish Dixit as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

5. The Respondent vide its reply dated 23rd October, 2020, rejected the name suggested by the Petitioner and instead provided a panel of three a