Arb.P.351, 359, 360 of 2015

Page 1 of 5

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of Decision: 23^rd December, 2015

+

ARB.P. 351/2015 and I.A. No.21099/2015

GAIL (INDIA) LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Balbir Singh, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Shridharan and Mr. Angad

Sandhu, Advocates

versus

BETA INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Piyush Joshi, Ms. Uttara Babbar

and Mr. Sumiti Yadava, Advocates

+

ARB.P. 359/2015 and I.A. No.21100/2015

GAIL (INDIA) LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Balbir Singh, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Shridharan and Mr. Angad

Sandhu, Advocates

versus

SRAVATHI ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Piyush Joshi, Ms. Uttara Babbar

and Mr. Sumiti Yadava, Advocates

+

ARB.P. 360/2015 and I.A. No.21101/2015

GAIL (INDIA) LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Balbir Singh, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Shridharan and Mr. Angad

Sandhu, Advocates

versus

Arb.P.351, 359, 360 of 2015

Page 2 of 5

GAMA INFRAPROP PRIVATE LIMITED

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Piyush Joshi, Ms. Uttara Babbar

and Mr. Sumiti Yadava, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

JUDGMENT

1.

The petitioner is seeking appointment of an arbitrator under Section

11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties

entered into three Gas Transmission Agreements dated 19^th October, 2010 in

Arb. P. 351/2015, 11^th November, 2010 in Arb. P. 359/2015 and 18^th

November, 2010 in Arb. P. 360/2015. There is a valid arbitration agreement

between the parties contained in clause 16 of the aforesaid agreements. The

disputes have arisen between the parties whereupon the petitioner invoked

the arbitration vide letters dated 05^th May, 2015.

3.

Learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute the existence of

valid arbitration agreements and disputes between the parties. Learned

counsel for the respondent however opposed the petition on the ground that

the respondent has made a complaint against the petitioner before the

Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board for indulging in a restrictive

trade practice. It was submitted that the said complaint is pending before the

Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board and, therefore, the petitions

for appointment of arbitrator are not maintainable.

4.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint

filed by the respondent before the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory

Board would not in any manner bar the arbitration proceedings being

invoked by the petitioner under the valid arbitration agreements between the

Arb.P.351, 359, 360 of 2015

Page 3 of 5

parties. It is further submitted that the Petroleum and Natural Gas

Regulatory Board’s jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes agreed to be

resolved by arbitration is specifically excluded by Section 12(1)(a) of the

Act which is reproduced hereunder:-

“Section 12-Powers regarding complaints and resolution of

disputes by the Board:

The Board shall have jurisdiction to-

for arbitration”.

5.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the

petitioner invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by filing

O.M.P. No. 1385/2014, 1386/2014 & 1387/2014 before this Court for

seeking injunction against the petitioner from invoking bank guarantee and

security deposit till the issue of termination of agreements was settled

through arbitration in which vide orders dated 10^th November, 2014, this

Court directed the parties to take recourse to amicable settlement as

contemplated in clause 16.1 of the Gas Transmission Agreement. It was

submitted that having invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation

Act, the respondent is estopped from opposing this petition for appointment

for arbitrator.

6.

Learned senior counsel for petitioner further submitted that a sole

arbitrator be appointed by this Court to