ARB.P. 637/2023

Page 1 of 8

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision:- 10.10.2023

+

ARB.P. 637/2023

TALEDA SQUARE PRIVATE LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Through:

Ms.Nina R Nariman with Ms.Geetika

Kapur, Advs.

versus

RAIL LAND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. R.V.Sinha with Mr. A.S.Singh,

Mr.Amit Sinha, Advs. and Mr. Rajeev Sharma,

Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

REKHA PALLI, J(ORAL)

1.

The present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act seeks appointment of an arbitrator/arbitral tribunal for

adjudication of disputes, which have arisen between the parties in the

context of lease agreement dated 31.03.2015.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the

arbitration clause contained in the aforesaid lease agreement, the disputes

between the parties are required to be adjudicated by a three member

tribunal, with one member of the tribunal being the petitioner’s nominee and

the other being the respondent’s nominee, with a further stipulation that the

vice chairman of the respondent will appoint the presiding arbitrator. She

submits that upon the petitioner invoking arbitration and suggesting the

name of its nominee arbitrator, the respondent refused to accept the said

Digitally Signed

By:GARIMA MADAN

Signing Date:11.10.2023

15:05:51

Signature Not Verified

ARB.P. 637/2023

Page 2 of 8

names and instead, offered names of five persons, who were on the panel of

the respondent and directed the petitioner to select one of those persons as

its nominee arbitrator. This offer of the respondent, she submits, is not

acceptable to the petitioner as the panel which has been offered to the

petitioner is not at all broad-based and is, therefore, not in consonance with

the decision of the Apex Court in Voestalpine Schienen Gmbh v. Delhi

Metro Rail Corporation Limited,(2017) 4 SCC 665. She also seeks to place

reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in TRF Limited v. Energo

Engineering Projects Limited,(2017) 8 SCC 377 and Perkins Eastman

Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC(India) Limited,(2020) 20 SCC 760 as also

on a recent decision of a Coordinate Bench in Margo Networks Pvt. Ltd. &

Anr. v. Railtel Corporation of India Ltd.,2023 SCC Online Del 3906. She,

therefore, prays that either the petitioner be granted liberty to appoint its

own nominee and the respondent be granted the same liberty to appoint its

nominee arbitrator or both the nominee arbitrators be appointed by this

Court.

3.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent by relying on

decisions of the Apex Court in Central Organisation for Railway

Electrification

v.

ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML(JV)

A

Joint

Venture

Company,(2020) 14 SCC 712 and Union of India v. Pradeep Vinod

Construction Company,(2020) 2 SCC 464 as also on a decision of a

Coordinate Bench in BCC Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi

Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. 2021 SCC Online Del 4837, submits that once

the agreement envisages that the nominee arbitrator of the petitioner is to be

appointed from the panel to be offered by the respondent, the petitioner is

bound by this condition to select its nominee arbitrator from the panel

Digitally Signed

By:GARIMA MADAN

Signing Date:11.10.2023

15:05:51

Signature Not Verified

ARB.P. 637/2023

Page 3 of 8

maintained by the respondent. Furthermore, by placing reliance on a recent

decision of the Apex Court in Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu &

Kashmir National Conference, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1140, he submits that

once the condition of appointment of the claimants nominee arbitrator from

the panel of arbitrators maintained by the respondent was upheld in Central

Organisation for Railway Electrification (supra), this Court ought to follow

the said course of action.

4.

Before dealing with the rival submissions of the parties, it would be

apposite to note the relevant arbitration