Dismissed

Nandhi Food Products Private Limited v. Ssmp Industries Limited

Delhi HC5 Feb 2019ARB.P./74/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this arbitration petition, the petitioner sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 citing incorrect disclosure by the appointed arbitrator. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that under established Supreme Court precedents, a party must first approach the arbitrator under Section 13 and not seek immediate court intervention.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 was dismissed; petitioner left to challenge the arbitrator's mandate under Section 13.

Nandhi Food Products Private Limited Vs Ssmp Industries Limited — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~10

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 74/2019

¶4

NANDHI FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Mohit Arora, Mr.Nitin Chahar, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

SSMP INDUSTRIES LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Nemo

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

¶8

O R D E R % 05.02.2019 IA 1743/2019

¶9

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶10

Arb.P. 74/2019 & IA 1742/2019

¶11

This petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟) has been filed by the petitioner seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the Purchase Orders for Alphanso Mango Pulp placed by the respondent on the petitioner.

¶12

Disputes having arisen between the parties, the same were referred to the Sole Arbitrator by the respondent vide letter dated 05.03.2018 in terms of the Arbitration Agreement between the parties. 3. The Arbitrator had given a disclosure statement under Section 12(1)(b) read with Sixth Schedule to the Act inter alia stating as under:

¶13

5	Circumstances disclosing any past or present relationship with or interest in any of the parties or in relation to the subject matter in dispute, whether financial, business, professional or other kind, which is likely to give rise to	I have no past or present relationship with or interest in any of the parties or in relation to the subject matter in dispute, whether financial, business, professional or other kind, which is likely to give rise to justifiable doubts on the grounds as contemplated in Schedule 5 of Arbitration
	justifiable doubts as to your independence or impartiality (list out)	and Conciliation Act, 1996 as to my independence or _impartiality. _

¶14

On further disclosure being sought by the petitioner, the Arbitrator in his order dated 30.12.2018 has disclosed that all three arbitration proceedings in which he is functioning as an Arbitrator are involving the respondent.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner based on the above two disclosure statements submits that the Arbitrator is liable to be removed and a new Arbitrator is to be appointed as the Arbitrator had intentionally made an incorrect disclosure in the first instance. He relies on the judgment of this Court in Dream Valley Farms Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Religare Finvest Ltd. & Ors . in Arb. P. No.635/2016 decided on 19.10.2016 to contend that in these circumstances, the party cannot be relegated to the remedy under Section 13 of the Act and this Court can appoint an Arbitrator in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section

¶16

11 of the Act.

¶17

I am unable to agree with the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner. In the present case, the Arbitrator already stands appointed in accordance with the Arbitration Agreement between the parties. There is no allegation that the Arbitrator would be ineligible under the Seventh Schedule to the Act. In HRD Corporation (Marcus Oil & Chemical Division) vs. Gail (India) Ltd . (2018) 12 SCC 471, the Supreme Court has held that once the Arbitrator is appointed and there is no allegation against him under the Seventh Schedule of the Act, the party complaining of such Arbitrator has to necessarily approach the Arbitrator first under Section 13 of the Act and thereafter, if aggrieved of the decision of the Arbitrator, challenge the said order along with its challenge under Section 34 of the Act.

¶18

In Antrix Corporation Ltd. vs. Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd., (2014) 11 SCC 560, the Supreme Court has further held that once the Arbitrator already stands appointed, the party to the Arbitration Agreement cannot file an application under Section 11 of the Act even if it has a grievance against the Arbitrator so appointed.

¶19

In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition, and the same is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the mandate of the Arbitrator, if so advised, in accordance with law.

¶20

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶21

FEBRUARY 05, 2019 RN

Nandhi Food Products Private Limited v. Ssmp Industries Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandhi Food Products Private Limited v. Ssmp Industries Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bkfc & Company Engineers & Contractor Vs Commercial Engineers & Body Builders Co. Ltd.

Capital First Limited Vs Foremost International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. Vs DDA & Anr.

Lakhvinder Singh Vs Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital

Avnish Seth Vs Inter Ads Exhibitions Pvt.Ltd.

Airports Authority of India Vs M/S Modern Radio House (I) Pvt. Ltd.