Kelvolt (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt. Ltd.

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Kelvolt (India) Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
Arb.P. 274 of 2022
Decided On : 12-04-2022

Important Points

The court confirmed the validity of arbitration clauses in contracts and emphasized procedural adherence under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, ensuring transparency through mandatory disclosures by arbitrators.

Subject

Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator

Headnote

(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal - The petition for appointment of an arbitral tribunal is based on a work order containing an arbitration clause dated 16.01.2015, with the parties consenting to arbitration under the auspices of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). (Paras 1-3)

(B) Arbitrator's Fees - The arbitrator is entitled to charge fees as per the DIAC's stipulated schedule. (Para 4)

(C) Disclosure Requirements - The arbitrator must furnish requisite disclosures under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 within one week of entering reference. (Para 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought the appointment of an arbitral tribunal due to disputes arising from a work order. The respondent submitted no objection to the referral of the matter to DIAC, where it was agreed that arbitration would proceed.

Findings of Court:
The court disposed of the petition by referring disputes to DIAC, correcting typographical errors in a prior order.

Issues: The primary issue was the referral of disputes to arbitration and the correction of representation in prior orders.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for adherence to procedural rules under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and the necessity for disclosure by the arbitrator to ensure transparency.

Result: The petition was disposed of in terms of the referral to DIAC.

Table of Content
1. appointment of arbitral tribunal based on contract. (Para 1)
2. consent to refer dispute to arbitration. (Para 2)
3. procedural details regarding arbitration appointment. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
4. correction of typographical errors in orders. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. Petitioner seeks appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal pursuant to the work order dated 16.01.2015 which contains an arbitration clause and stipulates that settlement of disputes shall be by way of arbitration.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that without prejudice to his defence he has no objection to the matter being referred to Delhi International Arbitration Centre.

3. Accordingly, with the consent of parties, the disputes are referred to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), which would appoint an arbitrator to arbitrate the disputes. The arbitration shall take place under the aegis of the DIAC in accordance with its rules and regulations.

4. The arbitrator would be entitled to charge fees in accordance with the schedule of fee stipulated by the DIAC.

5. The arbitrator shall furnish the requisite disclosure under section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 within one week of entering reference.

6. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that on account of a typographical error his name has not been noticed in order dated 29.03.2022 and the name of the Director of the petitioner has been noticed as having appeared for the respondent.

8. Order dated 29.03.2022 is corrected. Presence of Mr. Babit Jamwal, Advocate shall be read in order dated 29.03.2022 as having appeared for the respondent and the name of the Mr. Santosh Vishkarama, Director shall be deleted from the said order.

9. This order shall be uploaded as a corrigendum to order dated 29.03.2022.