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
Mukta Gupta, J.
Vistrat Real Estates Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Asian Hotels North Ltd. - Respondent
Arb.P. 1124 of 2021
Decided On : 22-04-2022




The court affirmed that valid arbitration agreements empower arbitrators to decide issues of non-signatories, relying on the competence-competence principle under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6) - Petition for appointment of Arbitrator following the terms outlined in the Refundable Security Deposit Agreements dated 12th May 2014 - The petitioner claimed entitlement to a refund of the security deposit of Rs.15 Crores, with an arbitration clause for unresolved disputes - Respondent argued disputes cannot be arbitrated due to third-party involvement. (Paras 1-6)

(B) Arbitration - Non-signatories - The court highlighted the principle of 'competence-competence' whereby the validity of disputes is primarily determined by the arbitrator, even in the context of third-party claims, as per established jurisprudence. (Paras 13-14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner entered agreements to purchase property, later selling the property and seeking a refund from the respondent without a third-party refundable deposit being made, which was contested by the respondent on the grounds of arbitration provision and third-party non-signature.

Findings of Court:
There is no merit in objections by the respondent against arbitration, and the petitioner’s requests are to be arbitrated due to a valid arbitration agreement existing between involved parties.

Issues: The court considered whether disputes involving a third party, not signatory to the arbitration agreement, can be referred to arbitration.

Ratio Decidendi: The presence of an arbitration agreement means the arbitrator determines disputes, including issues of third-party claims, as per the competence-competence doctrine.

Result: The petition for appointment of an arbitrator was granted.

Table of Content
1. petition for appointment of arbitrator. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. objections to arbitration due to third-party claims. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. doctrine of competence-competence in arbitration. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. court orders appointment of arbitrator. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT

1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short `the Act').

2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner purchased the ground 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th floors of New Tower, Bhikaji Cama Place, R. K. Puram, New Delhi along with the respective car parking areas at the Hyatt Complex from the respondent vide four registered Sale Deeds dated 12th May, 2014 (in short the Agreements) along with perpetual right to use car parking area.

3. The petitioner transferred and assigned all rights and title in the premises to IndusInd Bank Limited along with perpetual right to use car parking area. Thereafter, the petitioner sought refund of the security deposit of Rs.15 Crores deposited by the petitioner pursuant to Refundable Security Deposit Agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. Since, the claim of the petitioner now is in terms of the Refundable Security Deposit Agreements dated 12th May, 2014, Clause 7 whereof provides for an arbitration, the petitioner invoked arbitration and thereafter filed the present petition.

4. According to the petitioner on the disputes arising, petitioner issued a demand notice vide the letter dated 3rd July, 2021, which was not responded by the respondent and, thereafter, the petitioner issued notice dated 25th August, 2021 giving 30 days time for resolution of the disputes failing which the invocation of the arbitration in terms of the Agreements. Even this notice dated 25th August, 2021 was not replied by the respondent.

5. Clause 7 of the Refundable Security Deposit Agreements between the parties reads as under:

    "7. If the dispute is not resolved though such discussion within 30 (thirty) days after one Party has served a written notice on the other Party requesting the commencement of discussions, then such dispute shall be referred at the request in writing of any Party to the dispute to binding arbitration in accordance with Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 of India, as amended from time to time by a sole arbitrator to be mutually appointed by the Parties. All arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in the English language and the place of arbitration shall be New Delhi.

    Costs: The costs and expenses of the arbitration, including, without limitation, the fees of the arbitrator shall be borne equally by each Party and each Part shall pay its own fees, disbursements and other charges of its counsel, except for the fees and costs in respect of the arbitrator which shall be borne equally by the Parties. The arbitrator shall have the power to award interest on any sum awarded pursuant to the arbitration proceedings and such sum would carry interest, if awarded, until the actual payment of such amounts."

6. Though no reply affidavit has been filed to this petition despite time having been granted, the claim of the respondent before this Court is that in view of the third party intervention as the property has been sold off by the petitioner to some other party and the respondent has to take the refundable security deposit money from the said third party, the so called dispute cannot be referred to arbitration as the third party is not a signatory to the Refundable Security Deposit Agreements, Clause 7 whereof provides for reference of disputes to arbitration.

7. Clauses 2 and 3 of the Refundable Security Deposit Agreements between the petitioner and respondent read as under:

    "2. Subject to clause 3 herein below, the amount of Refundable Security Deposit shall be refunded by AHNL to Vistrat within 07 days from the date on which Vistrat tra

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