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.
Raymond Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Pret Study By Janak Fashions Private Limited - Respondent
Arb.P. 61 of 2021
Decided On : 15-07-2021




The court directed the appointment of an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, reaffirming the binding nature of the arbitration clause within the parties' agreement.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6) - Appointment of arbitrator - Petition for the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes as per arbitration clause in the agreement dated 10th June, 2017. Court directs referral of parties to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) for appointment. (Paras 1, 4, 7)

(B) Dispute Resolution - Court recognizes existence of a dispute between the parties and underscores the importance of arbitration as agreed in their contract. All questions regarding the arbitrariness and legal objections remain open for the arbitrator's determination. (Paras 2, 5, 6)

Facts of the case:
The petition concerns the appellant and the respondent in securing an arbitrator for disputes stemming from an agreement that includes an arbitration clause for resolution.

Findings of Court:
The court allows the petition and mandates the appointment of an arbitrator via DIAC in accordance with its rules.

Issues: Whether there exists a valid arbitration clause, and the nature of disputes that fall under the clause.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes that the agreement's arbitration clause must be adhered to, asserting the components of the clause while leaving all factual and legal objections to be resolved by the appointed arbitrator.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. existence of a dispute requiring arbitration. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. referral of dispute to arbitration under diac. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. petition allowed; arbitration proceedings confirmed. (Para 7)

ORDER

(Video-Conferencing)

1. This petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (`the 1996 Act') for appointment of an arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes between the parties.

2. Inasmuch as Ms. Vanika Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent does not oppose the request for appointment of an arbitrator, it is not necessary to distil, here, the details of the dispute. Suffice it to state that the dispute stands set out in sub-paras (ii) to (xxii) of the petition. The arbitration clause, in the "second agreement" dated 10th June, 2017 between the parties, reads as under:

    "ARBITRATION

    All claims, disputes or differences between the LICENSOR and LICENSEE arising from or in relation to and/or connected with this Agreement and/or concerning the license or the said Premises shall be settled amicably between the Parties. However, in case the dispute is not settled amicably, the matter shall be referred to Arbitrator and the Arbitration proceedings shall be held in accordance with the provisions of The Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 and other statutory modifications or re-enactments thereto in New Delhi. The seat of Arbitration will be New Delhi. The language in such arbitration proceeding shall be English."

3. The facts in the petition indicate that there is a dispute between the parties.

4. In view of the existence of the aforesaid dispute and the clause in the agreement between the parties envisaging arbitration as the method for resolving dispute, this Court refers the parties to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) to appoint an arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes.

5. It is made clear that all questions of fact and law including the arbitrability of the dispute and all other objections which may be raised are left open, for decision by the learned Arbitrator, if and when they are raised.

6. The arbitration shall proceed under the aegis of the DIAC and in accordance with its rules and regulations. The arbitrator would be entitled to fees as per the schedule of fees maintained by the DIAC.

7. This petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.

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