O.M.P. (T) (COMM) 34/2022

Page 1 of 13

$~49 (2022)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

O.M.P. (T) (COMM) 34/2022

SACHEEROME ADVANCED

TECHNOLOGIES (SAT)

..... Petitioner

Through Ms Geeta Luthra, Senior Advocate with

Ms Kamakshi Gupta, Ms Manas Agrawal,

Advocates.

versus

NEC TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. (NECI)

..... Respondent

Through Mr Ramesh Singh, Senior Advocate

with Mr Arjun Pall, Ms Satya Jha, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (ORAL)

1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 14 (2)

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

Act’), inter alia, praying that the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator

be terminated.

2.

The disputes between the parties have arisen in the context of an

agreement dated 11.06.2019 (the Agreement). On 08.10.2020, the

petitioner had issued a notice under Section 21 of the A&C Act,

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001155

O.M.P. (T) (COMM) 34/2022

Page 2 of 13

invoking the Arbitration Agreement and called upon the respondent to

concur on appointment of an arbitrator. The respondent rejected the said

request. Consequently, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 11

of the A&C Act [being ARB. P. 702/2020] seeking appointment of an

Arbitrator.

3.

The said petition was allowed by an order dated 04.12.2020 and

Sh Rajiv Bansal, Senior Advocate (since deceased) was appointed as

the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

4.

The learned Arbitrator expired on 17.05.2021. In the

circumstances, the petitioner filed a petition before this Court under

Section 14(1)(a) read with Section 15 of the A& C Act being OMP (T)

(COMM) 74/2021. This Court disposed of the said petition by an order

dated 09.08.2021 and appointed Ms Radhika Biswajit Dubey, Advocate

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

5.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the manner in which the Arbitral

Tribunal has conducted the arbitral proceedings. It is also averred in the

present petition that the learned Arbitrator did not make the complete

disclosure as required under Section 12(1) of the A&C Act at the time

of accepting her appointment. She had, however, subsequently

disclosed that she had worked as a junior to one of the senior counsels

appearing for the petitioner. She had also worked with a law firm, which

had subsequently split. After the split she thereafter, was associated

with one of the resultant firms as a partner (not the firm representing the

respondent). The other resultant firm is representing the respondent.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001155

O.M.P. (T) (COMM) 34/2022

Page 3 of 13

6.

Ms Luthra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner

states that the petitioner had not challenged the appointment of the

learned Arbitrator and had participated in the arbitral proceedings;

however, the learned Arbitrator’s inclinations were revealed

subsequently.

7.

It is important to note that the learned Arbitrator had made full

disclosure at the first preliminary hearing held on 26.08.2021. This was

prior to the learned Arbitrator receiving the Arbitral record. She had

also recorded that none of the circumstances as disclosed fall foul of the

Fifth or the Seventh Schedule to the A&C Act. Nonetheless she had

made the disclosure for the comfort of the parties. Admittedly, the

petitioner did not express any reservations and participated in the

arbitral proceedings. However, in the present petition it is averred that

the learned Arbitrator’s “direct and indirect” contact and connection

with the Law firms. have c