Disposed

Smiti Golyan v. Purearth Infrastructure Ltd.

Delhi HC9 Feb 2018ARB.P./493/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appearing as an order, this brief judgment disposes of an application for an extension of time to refile an arbitral petition. The petitioner sought the appointment of an arbitration tribunal due to the respondent's non-cooperation in appointing an arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Extension of 20 days costioned; appointment of Mr. Justice Kailash Gambhir (Retd.) as arbitrator under DIAC Rules.

Smiti Golyan Vs Purearth Infrastructure Ltd. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~46

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 493/2017

¶3

SMITI GOLYAN

¶4

..... Petitioner Through : Mr.C.P.Vig and Mr.Prateek Kumar, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

PUREARTH INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

¶7

..... Respondent Through : Mr.(Appearance not given), Adv.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA

¶10

O R D E R % 09.02.2018 IA No.8964/2018

¶11

For the reasons explained in the application the delay of 20 days in refiling stands condoned.

¶12

The application stands disposed of.

¶13

ARB.P. 493/2017

¶14

Issue notice.

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice.

¶16

This petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

¶17

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that seven agreements were entered into between the parties and out of which five agreements were of dated 07.01.2008 and others were of dated 14.02.2008. All the agreements contain arbitration clause(s). The venue of the arbitration as stated in the agreements is at Delhi. It is

¶18

further submitted that the petitioner had given a notice for appointment of an arbitrator for settling the dispute to which no reply was sent by the respondent. Hence, this petition.

¶19

The respondent has filed reply to the main petition wherein it has been submitted that the present petition seeking to refer the matter between parties to arbitration is not maintainable in as much as there is no existing arbitral dispute between the parties. However, the respondents have suggested four names viz., Mr. Justice S. L. Bayana (Retd.), Ms. Justice Sharda Aggarwal (Retd.), Mr. Justice Kailash Gambhir (Retd.) and Mr.P.K. Saxena, ADJ (Retd.). In the circumstances of the case, as suggested, Mr. Justice Kailash Gambhir (Retd.) is appointed as the arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute under the aegis of DIAC. The fee schedule shall be application as per DIAC Rules. Necessary declarations shall be made by the learned arbitrator. The respondent may raise objections before the learned arbitrator.

¶20

In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of.

¶21

YOGESH KHANNA, J

¶22

FEBRUARY 09, 2018 VLD

Smiti Golyan v. Purearth Infrastructure Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smiti Golyan v. Purearth Infrastructure Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.E. Contracts Pvt. Ltd. Vs Logix Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Ishwar Constructions through Anil Gupta Vs Hindustan Prefab Ltd. through Chairman Cum Managing Director Service Effected through General Manag

Progressive Infotech Private Limited Vs Prasar Bharti (All India Radio) & Anr.

The Orbis School Vs Educomp Solution Limited & Anr.

Img Reliance Private Limited Vs Basketball Federation of India & Ors.

Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd. Vs Broadband India Ltd.