Allowed

Sarvesh Security Services Pvt.Ltd v. Commanding Officer

Delhi HC17 Dec 2018ARB.P./853/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition for arbitrator appointment under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court directed the Delhi High Court International Arbitration Centre to appoint an independent arbitrator, noting the respondent lost its right to appoint due to non-response to the arbitration notice.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; case referred to Delhi High Court International Arbitration Centre for appointment of an arbitrator; respondent's limitation objection to be adjudicated by the arbitrator.

Sarvesh Security Services Pvt.Ltd Vs Commanding Officer — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~O-21

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 853/2018

¶4

SARVESH SECURITY SERVICES PVT.LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Arjun Mitra, Ms.Aastha Jain, Ms.Sneha Singh, Ms.Jaskaran Kaur, Ms.Rohni Gupta, Advocates along with Col. S.N.P. Singh, Director of the petitioner company in person

¶5

versus COMMANDING OFFICER ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Praveen Kumar Jain, Mr.Lokendra Singh, Advocates along with Lt.Cdr. Chetan Bagai.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

¶7

O R D E R % 17.12.2018 I.A.16535/2018

¶8

The petitioner is seeking appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the existence of an arbitration agreement reproduced in para 5 of the petition. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that the petitioner’s claims are time barred.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 11 (6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, this Court has to confine to the examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement.

¶11

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent be permitted to appoint the arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement

¶12

which is opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that the petitioner invoked the arbitration by notice dated 17^th September, 2018 which was duly received by the respondent on 24^th September, 2018 but the respondent chose not to respond to the said notice. It is further submitted that the respondent has lost its right to appoint an arbitrator and an independent arbitrator be appointed by this Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act

¶13

The petition is allowed and this case is referred to the appointment of an arbitrator to Delhi High Court International Arbitration Centre. The Delhi High Court International Arbitration Centre shall appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the claims and counter claims, if any of the parties. The objection of limitation of the respondent shall also be considered and adjudicated by the learned arbitrator.

¶14

The arbitration shall be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DAC).

¶15

Copy of this order be sent to Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DAC).

¶16

Copy of this order be given dasti to counsels for the parties under signatures of the Court Master.

¶17

J.R. MIDHA, J.

¶18

DECEMBER 17, 2018 dk

Sarvesh Security Services Pvt.Ltd v. Commanding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvesh Security Services Pvt.Ltd v. Commanding Officer

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

Hafees Vs Icici Lombard Motor Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Ohlone Press Llc & Anr. Vs Ved Prakash Sharma Trading as Veeom Healthcare

Arjun Kohli Vs Vishal Prajapati

Hero Fincorp Ltd. Vs Ajay Maini & Ors.

Shiv Kumar Doharey Vs Gail (India) Limited

Charanjit Singh Vs Harjeet Singh & Ors.