Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(HP) 1428

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Jalpa Mata Hp Center - Appellant
Versus
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors. - Respondents
Arbitration No. 70 of 2018, 72 of 2018, 73 of 2018, 79 of 2018, 80 of 2018, 81 of 2018, 82 of 2018, 83 of 2018, 84 of 2018, 85 of 2018, 89 of 2018, 90 of 2018, 91 of 2018
Decided On : 01-10-2018

Advocates Appeared:
Suneet Goel, Adv., Yashveer Singh Rathore, Adv., Rajiv Rai, Adv., B.C. Negi, Adv., Pranay Pratap Singh, Adv.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for neutrality of arbitrators, as provided for in the amended provisions of Section 12 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

Headnote:
Arbitration - Interim Relief - Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9
Fact of the Case:

The court heard instant arbitration cases filed for interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioners sought to stay the execution and operation of orders of recovery and blacklisting their companies, pending the appointment of an arbitrator in accordance with Clause 18 of the agreement between the parties.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners were not obligated to deposit the amount in terms of the previous order, as they had invoked arbitration proceedings for adjudication of the dispute. The court also appointed a neutral arbitrator to avoid different verdicts on the same issue and directed the parties to move appropriate applications under Section 17 of the Act within ten days of the arbitrator entering upon reference.
Issues: The issues involved the grant of interim directions to stay the execution and operation of recovery orders, the obligation to deposit the amount in terms of a previous order, and the appointment of a neutral arbitrator in accordance with the agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners were not obligated to deposit the amount as they had invoked arbitration proceedings for adjudication of the dispute. The court also relied on the amended provisions of Section 12 of the Act to appoint a neutral arbitrator, disregarding the stipulation in the agreement.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the arbitration cases, appointed a neutral arbitrator, and directed the parties to move appropriate applications under Section 17 of the Act within ten days of the arbitrator entering upon reference.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Sharma, J. - Instant arbitration cases have been filed with similar relief and against same respondents, as such, with the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties, same were taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. By way of present petitions filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended upto date, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner(s) for grant of interim directions to the extent that execution and operation of orders of recovery and blacklisting their Companies, may be stayed. Aforesaid prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners on the ground that since steps are being taken by them for appointment of arbitrator in terms of arbitration Clause 18 contained in the agreement entered into inter se parties, and as such, in the interregnum, respondents may be restrained from executing impugned orders, as has been taken note herein above. Detail of the orders impugned by way of present set of cases is as follows:

Sr. No.	Arb. Case No.	Title	Date of impugned order/annexure	Amount of recovery
1.	70 of 2018	M/s Jalpa Mata HP Center	22.8.2018 (Annexure P-6)	11,83,517
2.	72 of 2018	M/s Amar Service Station, Chandigarh	20.8.2018 (Annexure P-6)	59,42,094
3.	73 of 2018	Harpreet Singh Sabharwal	22.8.2018 (Annexure P-5)	11,14,839
4.	79 of 2018	M/s Sharma Oil Carrier	22.8.2018 (Annexure P-6)	12,46,438
5.	80 of 2018	Shree Balaji Filling Station	16.8.2018 (Annexure P-6)	3,63,353
6.	81 of 2018	M/s Nirmal Pitamber HP Centre	16.8.2018 (Annexure P-6)	8,48,672
7.	82 of 2018	M/s Paunta HP Centre	16.8.2018 (Annexure P-6)	3,87,502
8.	83 of 2018	M/s Mohan Singh & Sons	16.8.2018 (Annexure P-8)	10,63,923
9.	84 of 2018	M/s Puri HP Centre	16.8.2018 (Annexure P-8)	11,05,775
10.	85 of 2018	M/s Snowline Filling Station	21.9.2018 (Annexure P-6) &	14,44,925
			22.8.2018 (Annexure P-10)
11.	89 of 2018	M/s Hans Raj HP Centre	20.8.2018 (Annexure P-7)	10.82,107
12.	90 of 2018	M/s Saheed Raj Kumar Filling Station	10.9.2018 (Annexure P-7)	11,31,529
13.	91 of 2018	M/s Amit Oil Carrier	16.8.2018 (Annexure P-8)	26,88,644

3. Clause 18 of the agreement reads as under:

"18. Arbitration

All disputes and differences of whatsoever nature, whether existing or which shall at any time arise between the Parties hereto touching or concerning the agreement, meaning, operation or effect thereof or to the rights and liabilities of the Parties or arising out of or in relation thereto whether during or after completion of the contract or whether before after determination, foreclosure, termination or breach of the agreement (other than those in respect of which the decision of any person is, by the contract, expressed to be final and binding) shall, after written notice by either Party to the agreement to the other of them and to the Appointing Authority hereinafter mentioned, be referred for adjudication to the Sole Arbitrator to be appointed as hereinafter provided.

The appointing authority shall either herself act as the Sole Arbitrat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(HP) 1428

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for neutrality of arbitrators, as provided for in the amended provisions of Section 12 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

Cases Referred (10)