Partly allowed

Minerva Public School v. Edu Smart Services Private Limited & Anr.

Delhi HC14 Jul 2016ARB.P./106/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A list of miscellaneous orders in arbitration arbitr. petitions filed against Edu Smart Services. Petitioner sought to challenge the appointment of an arbitrator. Respondent allowed exemption, application disposed. Later order adjourns proceedings and permits filing of reply within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Exemption allowed subject to exceptions; application disposed of; notices issued; time granted for filing reply and rejoinder.

Minerva Public School Vs Edu Smart Services Private Limited & Anr. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$-35

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶4

ARB.P. 113/2016, LA. Nos.2401/2016 & 2402/2016

¶5

C. L. NAIDU LITTER FLOWER Petitioner Through Mr.Y.Rajagopala Rao, Adv. with Mr.Hitendra Nath Rath, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

EDU SMART SERVICES PVT LTD & ANR Respondents Through None

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

¶10

ORDER

¶11

% 19.02.2016

¶12

I cannothear this matter. List the same before anotherBench on 25^ February, 2016, subject to orders of Hon'ble the Judge Incharge (Original Side).

J FEBRUARY19,2016/ka

}G%J.

$-2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 113/2016, lA 2401-2402/2016 C. L. NAIDU LITTER FLOWER

¶17

Petitioner Through: Mr. Y. Raja Gopal Rao, Adv. with Mr. Manoj K. Jain. Adv.

¶18

versus

¶19

EDU SMART SERVICES PVT LTD & ANR.

'Respondent

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO ORDER

¶26

% 25.02.2016

¶27

lA 2402/2016

¶28

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶29

Application stands disposed of.

¶30

ARB.?. 113/2016 & lA 2401/2016

¶31

./i T

¶32

This is a petition filed underSection 11 and 12(3) of the Arbitration& Conciliation Act, 1996. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitionerthat the appointmentof an Arbitratormade by the respondentsis not in terms of clause 9.1 of the Agreement between the parties. He has drawn my attention to page 7 of the documents. According to him, the acceptable Sole Arbitrator was necessarily to be appointed by the

¶33

respondents,which in this case, the respondentshave failed to do, inasmuch as the respondents without notice to the petitioner had appointed an

¶34

Arbitrator. He also reliesupon the orderdatedNovember3, 2015 passedby

¶35

this Court in Arbitration Petition No.441/2015 in similar circumstances.

¶36

Issue notice to the respondents returnable before the Court on 1^^ April, 2016,

V. KAMESW^ RAO, J

FEBRUARY 25,2016/ak

$-5 to 9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶41

- ARB.P. 106/2016, lA 2233-2234/2016

¶42

(6) ARB.P. 107/2016,lA 2235-2236/2016

¶43

(7) ARB.P. 108/2016,lA 2237-2238/2016

¶44

(8) ARB.P. 109/2016,lA 2239-2240/2016

¶45

MINERVA PUBLIC SCHOOL Petitioner

¶46

Through:Mr.Y.RajagopalaRao, Adv.

¶47

versus

¶48

EDU SMART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

¶49

Respondents

¶50

Through: Mr.AshutoshKumar, Adv.

¶51

(9) ARB.P. 113/2016,lA 2401/2016

¶52

C. L. NAIDU LITTER FLOWER Petitioner Through: Mr.Y.RajagopalaRao, Adv.

¶53

versus

¶54

EDU SMART SERVICES PVT LTD & ANR Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Adv.

¶55

CORAM:

¶56

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

¶57

ORDER

¶58

% 01.04.2016

¶59

Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, learned eounsel appears for the respondents and seeks and allowed three weeks to file reply. Rejoinder within two weeks, thereafter.

¶60

Renotify on July 14, 2016.

¶61

Learned counsel for the respondents states that the respondents shall requestthe learnedArbitrator,to defer the date of hearingin the

¶62

arbitration proceedings to a date beyond July 14, 2016. The statement

is taken on reeord.

V. KAMESWAR BIAO, J

APRIL 01, 2016

$-5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶70

ARB.P. 441/2015 & I.A. No.16084/2015

¶71

SAVITRI DEVI MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL THROUGH: ITS PRESIDENT Petitioner Through: Mr. Sudesh Goyal, Advocate.

¶72

versus

¶73

EDU SMART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED

¶74

TH ITS AUTHORISEDREPRESENTATIVE& ANR... Respondents Through: Mr. R. Narayanan, Advocate for R2.

¶75

CORAM:

¶76

¶77

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

¶78

ORDER

¶79

% 03.11.2015

¶80

ARB.?. 441/2015 & I.A. No.16084/2015

¶81

Learned counsel for the respondents submits on instructions that the respondentshave no objectionto the terminationof the arbitratorappointed by them since the respondents-had not sought the concurrence of the petitioner. Leamed counsel for the respondents further submits that the respondents have no objection to the appointment of an independent arbitrator by this Court. With the consent of both the parties, the appointmentof the arbitratorappointedby respondentsis herebyterminated. 2. The petition is allowed and Ms. Vibha Mahajan Seth, Advocate, Mobile No.9810702410is appointed as sole arbitratorto adjudicate the disputes between the parties including their claims and counter-claims.The arbitration shall take place under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre ('DAC').

¶82

The Delhi International Arbitration Centre shall ensure the

¶83

compliance of the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Ordinance,2015 dated 23'"^ October,2015.

¶84

Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the petitioner under the signature of the Court Master. A copy of this order be delivered to the learned Arbitrator as well as Additional Coordinator, DAC forthwith. 5. The pending application is disposed of.

J.R. MIDHA, J.

NOVEMBER 03,2015

"(ii'liljlih-''

Minerva Public School v. Edu Smart Services Private Limited & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minerva Public School v. Edu Smart Services Private Limited & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs Pradeep B Bhatnagar

Ms Shoes East Ltd. Vs India Securities Ltd.

Nhpc Ltd. Vs Karam Chand Thapar & Bros.(Cs) Ltd.

Bucon Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rudra Buildwell Projects Pvt. Ltd.

S.D Jain and Others Vs M/S Cheap John

C. L. Naidu Litter Flower Vs Edu Smart Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.