Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Shivam Mediratta - Respondent
Arb.P. 579 of 2021 and O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 252 of 2020
Decided On : 23-07-2021
(Video-Conferencing)
C. Hari Shankar, J.
ARB.P. 579/2021 & O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 252/2020
1. These are interconnected petitions, arising out of common disputes.
2. On the last date of hearing, ARB.P. 579/2021 was adjourned in order to enable the parties to explore as to whether the disputes could be referred to arbitration by this Court and OMP(I)(COMM) 252/2020 be referred for the adjudication by the learned arbitrator as an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("1996 Act", in short).
3. Mr. Rajiv Talwar, learned Counsel for Mr. Shivam Mediratta, who is the respondent Arb. P. 579/2021 and is the petitioner in OMP(I)(COMM) 252/2020, is agreeable to the disputes being referred to arbitration by an arbitrator to be appointed by this Court. He submits that his only misgiving, regarding the reference of OMP(I)(COMM) 252/2020 to be adjudicated by the learned arbitrator as an application under Section 17 was regarding the authority of the arbitrator to adjudicate on prayer (a) in the said OMP.
4. Mr. Sidhant Kumar, learned counsel for M/s. Asian Hotels (North) Ltd., submits that there is no jurisdictional embargo on the arbitrator adjudicating either prayers (a) or (b) in OMP(I)(COMM) 252/2020. As such, he submits that he would not object to the maintainability of the said prayers before the learned Arbitral Tribunal and would restrict his arguments to contesting the prayers on merits.
5. In view thereof, I am of the opinion that it would be appropriate that this dispute is referred, for expeditious adjudication, to an arbitrator to be appointed by this Court.
6. As such, this Court appoints Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal (mobile: 09425155450, email: jus.pankaj.jaiswal@gmail.com), a former Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad to arbitrate on the disputes between the parties.
7. The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to charge fees in accordance with the Fourth Schedule to the 1996 Act.
8. The learned Arbitrator shall submit the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the 1996 Act within a week of entering on reference.
9. All questions of facts and law, except on the aspect of maintainability of the prayers in OMP(I)(COMM) 252/2020 before the learned Arbitral Tribunal, which is not being contested by Mr. Sidhant Kumar, are left open for agitation before the learned Arbitrator.
10. The learned Arbitrator would decide OMP(I)(COMM) 252/2020 as an application under Section 17 of the 1996 Act.
11. In order to expedite hearing of the matters, the petitioner in OMP(I)(COMM) 252/2020 is not required to re-file the OMP as a separate Section 17 application before the learned Arbitrator and is permitted to present OMP(I)(COMM) 252/2020 before the learned Arbitrator, who would treat it as an application under Section 17 of the 1996 Act.
12. Both parties shall be at liberty to seek permission from the learned Arbitrator to file any additional pleadings or documents, if so required and the learned Arbitrator would take a call thereon.
13. In view of the urgency expressed by Mr. Shivam Mediratta, the learned Arbitrator is requested to decide OMP(I)(COMM) 252/2020 as expeditiously as possible.
14. With the aforesaid observations, both the petitions stand disposed of.
I.A. 7850/2021 (Section 151 CPC for exemption) in ARB.P. 579/2021
In view of the order passed in the petitions, this application stands disposed of.
Disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can be referred to arbitration with both parties' agreement, confirming the maintainability of applications before the arbitrator.
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 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.
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.
Disputes may be referred to arbitration even when parties disagree on the identity of the arbitrator; allegations in arbitration petitions are irrelevant to the court's decision on referral.
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.
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 agreed to refer disputes to arbitration under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; interim directions remain operational until arbitrator's decision.
The court affirmed that disputes should be referred to arbitration under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, allowing for adequate security during the proceedings.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
