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.
Sarens Heavy Lift India Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Gammon-Construtora Cidade-Tensacciai JV - Respondent
Arb.P. 760 of 2021 and O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 279 of 2021
Decided On : 27-10-2021




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.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 17 - Referral of disputes to arbitration - Parties agreed to refer disputes to arbitration; injunction not sought - Arbitration proceeding security requested for amount of Rs.2,23,62,907/- - Court appointed arbitrator to resolve disputes and handle fees pursuant to the Act. (Paras 3 and 4)

(B) Arbitration - Appointment of arbitrator - Arbitrator appointed in accordance with Section 12(2) requirements and Fourth Schedule fees. (Para 4)

Facts of the case:
The case involved disputes between the parties regarding arbitration, with the petitioner seeking security in the form of bank guarantee or deposit of a specific amount during arbitration. The respondent did not oppose the referral.

Findings of Court:
The court accepted the suggestion for arbitration, appointing an arbitrator and directing proper security measures for the arbitration proceedings.

Issues: Main issues included whether the disputes should be referred to arbitration and the appropriate means for securing the disputed amount.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that as no injunction was sought and with the parties in agreement, referral of the dispute to arbitration under Section 17 of the Act was appropriate, streamlining the process for resolution.

Result: Both petitions disposed of with directions for arbitration.

ORDER (Oral)

ARB.P. 760/2021 and O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 279/2021

1. Learned Counsel for the respondent does not oppose reference of the disputes between the parties to arbitration and suggests that OMP (I) (Comm) 279/2021 could be referred to the learned arbitrator to be decided as an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. The prayer in OMP (I) (Comm) 279/2021 reads thus:

    "In view of the facts and circumstances explained above, the Petitioner herein most humbly and respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may [be] pleased to:

    a. Direct the Respondent to furnish adequate security in the form of Bank Guarantee issued by a Nationalized Bank in India or such other security as this Hon'ble Court deems fit that cover the entire amount of Rs.2,23,62,907/-; and/or

    b. Alternatively, direct the Respondent to deposit with this Hon'ble Court an amount of Rs.2,23,62,907/- by way of interest-bearing Fixed Deposit until conclusion of arbitration proceedings; and/or

    c. Pass any other or further Order (s) as this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. As the prayers of the petitioner do not seek any injunction, but merely seek securing of the amount in dispute in the arbitral proceedings, I am of the opinion that the suggestion, of learned Counsel for the respondent, for the prayer being referred for decision to the learned Arbitrator under Section 17 of the 1996 Act, deserves to be accepted.

4. In view thereof, both these petitions are disposed of in the following terms:

(i) Mr.Avadh Bihari Kaushik, Advocate [Cell No.9811455431 and E-mail ID: avadhkaushik@gmail.com] is appointed as the Arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes between the parties.

(ii) The Arbitrator would be entitled to charge fees in accordance with the Fourth Schedule to the 1996 Act or as otherwise fixed by him in consultation with learned Counsel for the parties.

(iii) The learned Arbitrator is requested to file the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the 1996 Act within a week of entering on the reference.

(iv) OMP (I) (Comm) 279/2021 stands referred for adjudication by the learned Arbitrator, who shall treat OMP (I) (Comm) 279/2021 as an application under Section 17 of the 1996 Act, without the petitioner being required to file a fresh application before the learned Arbitrator.

5. Both the petitions stand disposed of 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