Allowed

Vayam Technologies Ltd. v. Hewlett Packard Financial Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC7 Dec 2017ARB.P./637/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court appointed Mr. Sukumar Pattajoshi as a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, after both parties consented. The court addressed a dispute regarding cost-borne clauses in the underlying agreement but directed equal cost-sharing subject to the arbitrator's final determination.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. Sukumar Pattajoshi as sole arbitrator; direction to share arbitration costs equally subject to arbitrator's award.

Vayam Technologies Ltd. Vs Hewlett Packard Financial Services… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~24

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 637/2017

¶4

VAYAM TECHNOLOGIES LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Anish Agarwal, Mr. Shantanu Sagar, Mr. Satyam Thareja, Mr Sushant, Mr. Jeewesh Prakash, Advs

¶5

versus

¶6

HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

¶7

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Vikas Mehta with Mr. B. Mithen Rao, Advocates

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 07.12.2017

¶12

This petition under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) has been filed by the petitioner seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the “Masters Rental and Financing Agreement” dated 20^th July, 2012. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Agreement’). The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has no objection if Mr. Sukumar Pattajoshi, Senior Advocate is appointed as a sole arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes. The learned counsel for the petitioner also has no objection to such appointment.

¶13

In view of the above Mr. Sukumar Pattajoshi, Senior Advocate is hereby appointed as a sole arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the above mentioned Agreement. He shall make a disclosure to the parties in accordance with Section 12(1) of the Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Clause 25.1 of the Agreement provides that the costs of appointing the arbitrator and the cost of arbitration have to be borne only by the petitioner. He submits that the said term of the Agreement would be void in view of Section 31A(5) of the Act.

¶15

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has no objection if it is directed that the costs of arbitration would be shared equally between the parties subject, of course, to the arbitrator deciding the issue of costs in accordance with the Act along with arbitral award and in accordance with the Act. It is directed accordingly.

¶16

The present petition is allowed in the above term with no order as to costs.

¶17

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶18

DECEMBER 07, 2017/Nk

Vayam Technologies Ltd. v. Hewlett Packard Financial Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vayam Technologies Ltd. v. Hewlett Packard Financial Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.

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

Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs Lawrance v & Anr.

Gurnam Singh Vs Jatinder Pal Singh Taneja & Ors.

K.K.Ropeways Ltd. Vs Billion Smiles Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.

Surinder Pal Singh Vs Harvinder Singh & Anr.

Siesta Hospitality Services Ltd. Vs Spicejet Ltd.

Alstom T & D India Ltd. (Formerly Areva T&D India Ltd.) Vs M/S Aradhya Infra-Tech Pvt. Ltd.