In an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the High Court of Delhi appointed an arbitrator in a commercial dispute where the respondent failed to fulfill its obligation to appoint a sole arbitrator despite a prior court order.
Appointment of Mr. Pradeep Kumar as the sole arbitrator under DIAC rules.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~8
..... Petitioner Through : Mr.Nitin Garg and Ms.Neha Garg, Advocates. versus ..... Respondent
versus
PNM SERVICES PVT. LTD.
Through : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
% 07.02.2018
The petitioner filed this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as „the Act‟) for appointment of the arbitrator.
It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was approached to take an insurance policy but instead the respondent issued the club membership receipts. On 26.02.2014, the petitioner issued two cheques of Rs.24,999/- each to respondent; on 05.03.2014 further two cheques of Rs.1.00 lac each were paid to respondent company; on 22.03.2014 the petitioner gave cheque of Rs.3.00 lac; on 25.03.2014 cheque of Rs.3.00 lac was given; on 12.04.2014 again two cheques of Rs.25,000/- each were given; on 19.04.2014 two cheques of Rs.2.00 lac and Rs.3.00 lac were given. Some disputes arose between the parties for issuance of insurance policies and after issuance of legal notice dated 14.07.2014 petitioner filed the Civil Suit No.470/2014 on 05.09.2014 before the learned District Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi for recovery. Upon the failure
of respondent to file the written statement, its right was closed on 07.03.2015 by learned Trial Court. During the pendency, the respondent herein preferred an application under Section 8(1) of the Act on 18.04.2015 and learned Trial Court vide order dated 11.12.2015 allowed the said application and directed the respondent to appoint the sole arbitrator within 30 days thereafter. The respondent failed to appoint the arbitrator and hence the present petition filed by the petitioner.
Pursuant to the directions of this Court as contained in the order dated 25.10.2017, the respondent has been duly served through publication in “Statesman” dated 28.11.2017. However, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the clause No.15 of the common proposal form which notes as under:-
“15. Any disputes answering out of this programe/package shall be decided by the sole arbitrator to be appointed by the PNM Services Private Limited. The place of arbitration shall be Delhi.”
In view of the above facts and the order dated 11.12.2015 passed by the learned Trial Court in Civil Suit No.469/2014, Mr.Pradeep Kumar, Advocate (Mobile No.9810243924) is hereby appointed as an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. The proceedings be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and the fee shall be paid as per the Fee Schedule of DIAC. Petitioner to appear before the
Co-ordinator of the Delhi High Court Arbitration and Conciliation Centre on 27.02.2018 at 12.00PM.
Petition stands disposed of.
YOGESH KHANNA, J
FEBRUARY 07, 2018 M
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when the respondent failed to appoint a sole arbitrator despite pr
Whether the parties are bound by the arbitration clause existing in the common proposal form.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Narendar Kaur
PNM Services Pvt. Ltd.
Yogesh Khanna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
