O.M.P. (COMM) 156/2021 Page 1 of 11

$~6

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

O.M.P. (COMM) 156/2021 & CAV. 18/2021, I.A. 5569/2021,

I.A. 5571/2021, I.A. 5572/2021

RAM NANDA AND CO. & ORS.

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr Jeetender Gupta, Advocate.

versus

SANJAY SAIGAL

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr Rajat Bhalla, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

[Hearing held through video conferencing]

VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (ORAL)

1.

The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 34

of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter „the A&C

Act‟), impugning an arbitral award dated 29.06.2019 (the impugned

award) passed by an Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a Sole Arbitrator.

2.

The petitioners contend that the impugned award is liable to be

set aside in terms of Section 34 (2)(a)(iii) in as much as the petitioners

were not given any notice for appointment of an arbitrator or of the

arbitral proceedings. The petitioners also claims that they were unable

to present their case and contest the said proceedings.

3.

This case has a chequered history spanning more than twenty-

2021:DHC:1644

O.M.P. (COMM) 156/2021 Page 2 of 11

five years. The respondent claims that a substantial amount is owed to

him by the petitioners. Accordingly, on 06.05.1995, the respondent

filed a civil suit in this court, being Civil Suit no. 168/1995, for

recovery of ₹1,10,73,468/- from the petitioners. The petitioners

contested the maintainability of the said suit in view of the arbitration

clause as contained in the bye-laws of the Delhi Stock Exchange

Limited (hereafter „DSE‟) and sought reference of the disputes to

arbitration. Both parties were members of DSE and admittedly were

bound by the bye-laws of the said Stock Exchange. In view of the

above, by an order dated 19.11.2001, this Court disposed of the civil

suit filed by the respondent (Civil Suit No. 168/1995) and referred the

parties to arbitration. It directed DSE to appoint an Arbitrator to

adjudicate the disputes between the two parties.

4.

There was a considerable delay in appointment of an arbitrator.

Finally, on 02.04.2008, DSE appointed Justice J. K. Mehra (Retired)

as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

The learned Arbitrator delivered an award dated 14.08.2008 rejecting

the claims made by the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the

respondent filed a petition for setting aside the arbitral award dated

14.08.2008 (OMP No. 09/2009). The said petition also remained

pending in this Court for a considerable period of time. It is pointed

out that much of the time was taken in the said proceedings to serve

the petitioner. Finally, this Court ordered substituted service and

directed publication of notices in a national daily. The said notices

were published in the Statesman on03.04.2017 and 01.08.2017.

2021:DHC:1644

O.M.P. (COMM) 156/2021 Page 3 of 11

5.

Despite publication of the said notices, the petitioner did not

appear in the matter. On 25.09.2017, the concerned Joint Registrar

passed an order recording that the petitioners were duly served and

thereafter the matter was listed for hearing.

6.

Thereafter, by an order dated 14.11.2018, this Court allowed the

respondent‟s petition for setting aside the arbitral award (OMP

12/2009 captioned Virender Saigal & Co. v. M/s Ram Nanda & Co.

& Ors.)Paragraphs 7 to 10 of the said judgment are relevant and are

set out below:-

“7.

The impugned award IS not sustainable

inasmuch as the order referring the matter to

arbitration had clearly directed reference after

parties gave consent and after arriving at a

satisfaction that the disputes were arbitrable. The