Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Kamal Khosla - Appellant
Versus
Vidya Sagar Sareen - Respondent
Arb.P. 546 of 2021
Decided On : 31-08-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appointment of arbitrator under arbitration act (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. directions regarding arbitration procedure (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. disposal of the petition (Para 15) |
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 11(6)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of Arbitrator calling upon the respondents to adjudicate the disputes in terms of Clause 14.8 of Share Purchase Agreement dated 14.12.2018 (hereinafter referred as "the Agreement").
2. According to petitioner, respondents No. 1 and 2 jointly approached the petitioners to purchase their entire shareholding being 41.12% in respondent No.3 i.e. Tratec Engineers Private Limited, for mutually agreed consideration of Rs.6,16,62,485/-. On 14.12.2018, the Agreement was executed, according to which respondents No.1 and 2 promised to buy 41.12% shareholding of respondent No.3 which was held by petitioners.
3. Respondent No. 1 (through its associated ventures) purchased 2% of shareholding by paying a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- on 14.12.2018.
4. Second installment under the agreement was due on 30.06.2019 but the respondents failed to perform their part of obligation of making payment of Rs.98,31,176/- towards transfer of 57,418 shares as per terms and conditions recorded in the aforesaid Agreement.
5. According to petitioners, respondents partially performed their part of obligation by paying a sum of Rs.98,00,000/- against due amount of Rs.98,31,176/-. Thus, leaving an outstanding balance of Rs.31,176/ towards the second Tranche of the transaction. Further, respondents failed to pay third Tranche due on 31.12.2019.
6. On 15.07.2020, respondent No.1 raised dispute on frivolous grounds which petitioners denied vide notice dated 05.08.2020.
7. Respondents again failed to pay for the fourth Tranche due on 31.12.2020.
8. Petitioners initiated insolvency proceedings against second and third installment default before National Company Law Tribunal, which was withdrawn with liberty to pursue future legal recourse.
9. Thereafter, petitioners sent a legal notice dated 12.04.2021 for appointment for Arbitrator and nominated Justice (Retd.) Rameshwar Singh Malik as per clause 14.8 of the Agreement. However, the respondents failed to nominate and appoint their Arbitrator. Hence, the present petition has been filed.
10. At the hearing, learned counsel for the parties jointly state that instead of adjudication of disputes by three Arbitrators, sole Arbitrator be appointed by this Court.
11. Accordingly, Justice (Retd.) Sunil Gaur (Mobile: 9971000718) is appointed sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties in this petition.
12. The fee of the learned Arbitrator shall be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
13. The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.
14. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Arbitrator for information.
15. With aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of.
The court's power to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the importance of compliance with Section 12 of the Act before commencing arbit....
The existence of an arbitration clause in an agreement, the arbitrability of disputes, and the fulfillment of necessary ingredients for the appointment of an arbitrator under the Arbitration Act are ....
The court upheld the arbitration agreement and allowed the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
Court may appoint a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act when parties fail to respond to dispute communications.
The main legal point established in this judgment is the interpretation of the arbitration agreement and the determination of whether the disputes arising from the Share Purchase Agreement are amenab....
The court affirmed that parties can consent to arbitration, and disputes arising from a loan agreement are valid for arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court can appoint an Arbitrator when parties fail to mutually agree, as per agreement provisions and arbitration law.
The court confirmed the arbitrability of disputes arising from contractual breaches and appointed a sole Arbitrator as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ensuring all matters remain open....
Presence of a valid Arbitration Agreement and the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to resolve disputes arising under the Consultancy Agreement.
The court asserted that an Arbitrator must be mutually appointed under contract terms to ensure unbiased resolution of disputes, rejecting unilateral appointments.
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
