Disposed

Mitsubishi Elevator India Private Limited v. Eos Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC18 May 2018ARB.P./246/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the parties to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre for successful dispute resolution within two months. Upon consent, the Court directed the Delhi International Arbitration Centre to appoint an arbitrator, subject to a two-month delay for amicable settlement.

What did the court decide?

Parties directed to mediation at DHMCC for two months; DIAC directed to appoint arbitrator within two months if mediation fails.

Mitsubishi Elevator India Private Limited Vs Eos… — Specific Performance | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~5

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

ARB.P. 246/2018

¶4

MITSUBISHI ELEVATOR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Abhinav Bhalla, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

EOS HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr Gaurav Mahajan Advocate.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R % 18.05.2018

¶8

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 (hereafter ‘the Act’), inter alia, praying that an arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the Work Order dated 27.11.2013. The said work order includes an arbitration clause, which is set out below:-

¶9

“12 Arbitration :

¶10

All disputes, differences and claims whatsoever which shall at any time arise between the parties hereto or their respective representatives concerning this contract and all other documents in pursuance hereof as to the rights, duties, obligations or liabilities of the parties hereto respectively by virtue of this contract shall be:

¶11

a) First referred to a Senior Personnel of both the parties. If after the meeting, the resolution is not

¶12

achieved, then,

¶13

b) Shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the arbitration and conciliation act 1996 as amended from time to time. Such arbitration proceedings will take place in Delhi only, and shall be subject to jurisdiction of the courts in Delhi.”

¶14

There is no dispute as to the existence of the arbitration agreement. It is also not disputed that the said arbitration clause was duly invoked. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that the respondent would desire to make further efforts to resolve the disputes amicably.

¶15

At the request of the learned counsel for the respondent, the parties are referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre (DHMCC) for endeavouring to resolve their disputes amicably within a period of two months from today. The parties shall appear before DHMCC on 25.05.2018 at 3 p.m.

¶16

Further, with the consent of the parties, Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) is directed to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes falling within the arbitration clause. The arbitration shall be conducted under the aegis of the DIAC and in accordance with its Rules. However, it is directed that the arbitrator shall not be appointed for a further period of two months from today. In the meanwhile, the parties may attempt to resolve their disputes amicably before DHMCC. If the parties are resolve their disputes amicably, they shall communicate the same to the Coordinator, DIAC and no further steps will be required to be taken by the DIAC. However, if the parties are unable to resolve their disputes on or

¶17

before 18.08.2018, the parties shall appear before the Coordinator, DIAC on 20.08.2018 at 10:30 a.m. for further proceedings.

¶18

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶19

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶20

MAY 18, 2018 RK

Mitsubishi Elevator India Private Limited v. Eos Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mitsubishi Elevator India Private Limited v. Eos Hospitality 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

Pankaj Arora Vs Avv Hospitality LLP & Ors.

Berggruen Car Rentals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Tata Housing Development Company Ltd.

National Highway Authority of India Vs Gwalior Bypass Project Ltd.

Indian Vision Network (Formely Know as Clear Vision Network) Vs Noida Software Technology Park Limited

Dhruv Anshu Builders and Promters through Its Partner Mr. Sudhir Bharti Vs Pushpa Builders Ltd. & Ors.

Manak Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.