IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh, JJ.
NJ Bikes India Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Suzuki Motorycycle India Private Limited - Respondent
FAO (COMM) 8 of 2022
Decided On : 18-01-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against previous court order (Para 2) |
| 2. counsels' presentation of case (Para 3) |
| 3. court's directions for arbitration (Para 4) |
| 4. closure of pending application (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 3003/2022
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
FAO (COMM) 8/2022 and CM APPL. 3002/2022 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant for interim relief]
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.01.2022, passed by the learned District judge (Commercial Court)-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. The impugned order dated 06.01.2022 has been passed in an application filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [in short "the 1996 Act"].
3. We have heard Ms Kiran Suri, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant, as also Mr Anshul Sehgal, who appears on advance notice on behalf of the respondent.
4. After some arguments, counsel for the parties i.e., Ms Suri and Mr Sehgal agreed that the appeal could be disposed of based on the following directions. We may add that, both the counsels have taken instructions in the course of the proceedings from their respective principals, as regards the directions which are being issued by the Court.
4.1. Given this position, the appeal is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) Mr Justice S.P. Garg (Retd.), former judge of this Court, shall act as the sole arbitrator in the matter concerning disputes which have arisen between the parties herein.
(ii) The arbitration proceedings will be governed by the provisions of the 1996 Act.
(iii) The fee payable to the learned arbitrator i.e., Mr Justice SP Garg (Retd.) will be, as per the provisions of the fourth Schedule of the Act.
(iv) The learned arbitrator shall also make necessary disclosures as required under the Act.
(v) The appellant will be at liberty to move an application before the learned arbitrator for return of goods, which were bought under the dealership agreement obtaining with the respondent at the relevant point in time. The respondent will be at liberty to file a reply to the aforesaid application; whereupon the learned arbitrator will adjudicate upon the same. If such an application is filed, the same will be dealt with by the learned arbitrator in the first instance.
(vi) The appellant will be free to move before the learned arbitrator any other interlocutory application(s) in furtherance of its case. This, however, will not come in the way of the respondent resisting the same, if thought fit.
(vii) Needless to add, nothing stated by us hereinabove will impact the merits of the case.
5. Consequently, pending application shall also stand closed.
The court appointed a retired judge as a sole arbitrator for disputes under the Arbitration Act, allowing the appellant to pursue interlocutory applications while emphasizing that the merits of the c....
The court clarified that the residuary clause in Section 9(1)(ii)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not permit intervention for issues pertaining to fee calculation by the Tribunal.
The residuary clause of Section 9(1)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not cover orders passed by the Tribunal concerning the calculation of fee based on the interpretation of th....
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.
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.
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.
The court's decision was based on the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the appointment of the arbitrator was in accordance with the legal framework provided by the Act.
The court appointed an arbitrator to resolve disputes as per the arbitration clause in the agreement, emphasizing that the parties are bound to arbitrate their disagreements.
Appointment of an arbitrator in instances where the respondent does not object to arbitration is valid under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing the importance of efficient dispute reso....
The court appointed an arbitrator to resolve disputes between parties, emphasizing adherence to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act procedures.
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.