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.
Aegis Costumer Support Services Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Futuretimes Technology India Private Limited - Respondent
Arb.P. 144 of 2021
Decided On : 15-07-2021




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.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 11(5) and 11(6) - Appointment of arbitrator - Petitioner sought appointment of arbitrator due to disputes arising from the agreement - Respondent did not oppose the appointment - Court appoints an arbitrator to resolve disputes. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 6, 9)

(B) Arbitration Clause - Court emphasized the necessity of appointing an arbitrator as per the agreement - Parties are bound by their arbitration clause which mandates dispute resolution through arbitration. (Paras 3, 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner initiated arbitration proceedings as the respondent did not object, with disputes involving a claim of approximately Rs. 2.6 crores. Petitioner had sent a notice for arbitration but faced service issues.

Findings of Court:
The court appointed a senior advocate as the arbitrator to hear and resolve the disputes between the parties and provided contact details for communication.

Issues: The main issue was the necessity to appoint an arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration clause specified in the agreement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the arbitration clause governs the dispute resolution process and the respondent's lack of opposition warranted the appointment of an arbitrator as per the agreed terms.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. petition for appointment of arbitrator (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. arbitration clause details (Para 3)
3. non-opposition to arbitration (Para 5)
4. appointment of arbitrator and terms (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
5. conclusion and order issued (Para 9)

ORDER (Oral)

(Video-Conferencing)

C. Hari Shankar, J.

ARB.P. 144/2021

1. This is a petition under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("1996 Act" for short), for appointment of an arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes between the parties.

2. The dispute, as set out in the petition, is contained in paras 1 to 24 thereof. As the respondent is not objecting to the appointment of an arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes, this Court is not burdening the order with a recital of the facts.

3. The Arbitration Clause, in the agreement between the parties, reads thus:

    "F. Governing Law & Arbitration

    This LOE and all matters arising out of or related to this LOE shall be governed by the laws of India and courts at New Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any matter of dispute arising under this LOE.

    All disputes arising in relation to or pertaining to or under this LOE or any part thereof shall be resolved by a sole arbitrator mutually agreed between the parties, in accordance with the provision of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and amendments thereof The seat of Arbitration shall be New Delhi and the language shall be English."

4. Notice invoking arbitration was sent by the petitioner to the respondent on 24th September, 2020, but could not be served. 30 days having elapsed therefrom, the petitioner has moved this Court under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the 1996 Act.

5. Ms. Raddhika Khanna, learned Counsel for the respondent, does not oppose reference of the disputes to arbitration. The claim is stated to be in the vicinity of Rs.2.6 crores, apart from interest.

6. Accordingly, this Court appoints Mr. Ravi Kant Chadha, Senior Advocate, as the arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes between the parties. The contact details of the learned Arbitrator are as under:

    Cell No.: 9811024601

    E-mail ID: chadhaandassociates@rediffmail.com

7. The learned Arbitrator shall file the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the 1996 Act within a week of entering on reference.

8. The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to charge fees in accordance with the Fourth Schedule to the 1996 Act.

9. With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands allowed and 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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top