IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Akash Agrawal - Appellant
Versus
Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
Arb.P. 744 of 2021
Decided On : 31-08-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute arises from consultancy agreement and payment issues (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. counsel requests appointment of arbitrator, agreed by both parties (Para 7) |
| 3. appointment of arbitrator and compliance requirements established (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. case disposed of with arbitration order (Para 11) |
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties under Consultancy Agreement dated 22.10.2019.
2. Petitioner claims to be a leading consultant having experience and specialised knowledge of more than 2 decades in the field of retail including online and institutional business, marketing and brand development. He is engaged in assisting and advising various corporate entities to expand their business and has experience of working with various Fortune 100 Global Brands. The respondent is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 and is engaged in manufacturing/marketing of diverse range of health, homecare and hygiene products.
3. On 22.10.2019, the petitioner and the respondent entered into a Consultancy Agreement wherein petitioner was appointed as a Consultant of respondent for a fixed period from 22.10.2019 to 31.12.2020. However, certain differences and disputes arose between the parties, as the respondent failed to clear the variable fee amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs only) due on the petitioner under Consultancy Agreement.
4. According to the petitioner, several emails were addressed to the respondent requesting to clear the amount, however, respondent did not respond to the same. Thereafter, the respondent sent an e-mail to the petitioner on 27.03.2021 offering him a settlement amount of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Fifty Thousand only) as a goodwill gesture against the due amount of Rs.20,00,000/-.
5. However, on 06.04.2021, petitioner served a legal notice to the respondent calling upon to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. within 7 days of receipt thereof, failing which the petitioner proposed name of a retired judge to act as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
6. In reply to the legal notice of petitioner, respondent sent a misconceived reply dated 28.04.2021, refuting the claim of petitioner and agreed to refer the disputes to arbitration.
7. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for appointment of sole independent arbitrator. The aforesaid submission is not disputed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
8. Accordingly, Mr. Amrit Pal Singh Gambhir, Advocate (Mobile: 9810082347) is appointed sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The arbitration shall be conducted under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The fee of the Arbitrator shall be in accordance with the schedule of fees prescribed under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) (Internal Management) Rules and Delhi International Arbitration Centre (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators' Fees) Rules, 2018.
9. The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Arbitrator for information.
11. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
The court highlighted the validity of arbitration agreements and the necessity of appointing an arbitrator to resolve disputes when one party fails to fulfill financial obligations under a contract.
Presence of a valid Arbitration Agreement and the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to resolve disputes arising under the Consultancy Agreement.
In the event of the demise of the sole Arbitrator, a new Arbitrator can be appointed to continue the arbitration proceedings in accordance with Sections 14 & 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Ac....
The court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The necessity to appoint a new Arbitrator is confirmed under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, recognizing the continuation of the arbitration process post-demise of the ori....
Appointment of an arbitrator is essential when disputes arise from contractual agreements and non-compliance with demand notices, reinforcing the obligations under the Arbitration and Conciliation Ac....
Court can appoint a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with mutual consent of the parties for efficient dispute resolution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when the respondent fails to ....
The court asserted that an Arbitrator must be mutually appointed under contract terms to ensure unbiased resolution of disputes, rejecting unilateral appointments.
Unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator is not acceptable as it defeats the purpose of unbiased adjudication of disputes between the parties.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.