Disposed

Rajiv Arora v. Bptp Limited & Anr.

Delhi HC9 Jan 2018ARB.P./667/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court held that the petitioner requests for interpretation under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding the appointment of an arbitrator in a commercial dispute.

What did the court decide?

The parties were directed to appear before the co-ordinator of DIAC for appointment of arbitrator on 15.01.2018 at 11:30 AM, and the petition was disposed of.

Rajiv Arora Vs Bptp Limited & Anr. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~5

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

ARB.P. 667/2017

¶4

RAJIV ARORA ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through : Mr.Rahul Rathore & Mr.Karunesh Kumar Shukla, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

BPTP LIMITED & ANR. ..... Respondents Through : Mr.Manish Sharma and Mr.Ninad Dogra, Advocates.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 09.01.2018 IA No.293/2018

¶11

For the reasons explained in the application, the delay of 15 days in filing the reply stands condoned. The reply of respondent is taken on record.

¶12

The application stands disposed of.

¶13

ARB.P. 667/2017

¶14

The petitioner filed this petition under Section 11(5) and (6) the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act’) for appointment of the arbitrator.

¶15

The facts in brief as alleged by petitioner are:-

¶16

a) On 21.09.2011 the petitioner entered into an agreement for allotment of commercial/office space in the project of respondent namely Capital City, Sector - 94, NOIDA containing the clause No.55 as arbitration clause;

¶17

b) on 29.09.2014 the promised date of possession of the office space lapsed and grace period of six months also stood expired on 21.03.2015 but the respondent failed to deliver the possession as the building remains incomplete and project land is still undeveloped and even false assurances were made the project will be completed by 2018;

¶18

c) on 29.04.2015, the respondents without consent of petitioner changed the allotted unit of petitioner and informed that Grand Hyatt, 5 Star Hotel - prominent part of project has been removed;

¶19

d) on 14.08.2017 after umpteen emails sent by petitioner between the year 2014-2017, the petitioner terminated the agreement through email at the unilateral altercation of unit and removal of Grand Hyatt and other breaches etc. and asked for refund with interest;

¶20

e) on 16.08.2017 the petitioner also sent termination notice through speed post while duplicating the termination email dated 14.08.2017;

¶21

f) on 23.08.2017 the respondent replied evasively threatening deductions and advised the petitioner to continue with the investment; g) on 24.08.2017 the petitioner issued legal notice to respondents and invoked clause No.55 containing arbitration agreement and said notice was served upon both respondents on 29.08.2017 and 30.08.2017 per online delivery reports;

¶22

h) upon expiry of 30 days i.e., on 27.09.2017 both the respondents failed to respond; hence the present petition.

¶23

In terms of clause No.55 of the agreement entered into between the parties, any dispute pertaining to the contract is to be referred to

¶24

the sole arbitrator. On 24.08.2017 notice of invoking the arbitration clause was sent to both the respondents, but they did not come forward to appoint an arbitrator; hence this petition.

¶25

I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶26

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the parties to appear before the learned co-ordinator of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), Delhi High Court for appointment of arbitrator on 15.01.2018 at 11:30 AM. The arbitration shall take place under the aegis of DIAC rules. The fee of the arbitrator shall be in terms of rules of DIAC.

¶27

In above terms, the petition stands disposed of.

¶28

YOGESH KHANNA, J

¶29

JANUARY 09, 2018 M

Rajiv Arora v. Bptp Limited & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajiv Arora v. Bptp 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

Sh. Vijayant Vikram & Anr. Vs Sh. Akhtar Hussain Dhobi

Il&Fs Engineering & Construction Company Limited Vs Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited & Ors.

Il&Fs Engineering & Construction Company Limited Vs Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited

Ultratech Cement Limited Vs Jaiprakash Associates Limited & Anr.

Monika Ghei Vs Msx Mall Private Limited & Ors.

Geetanjali Salwan Vs Omaxe Ltd.