Allowed

Abhijit Singh Raghav v. Mohd.Yaqub Qureshi

Delhi HC17 Jan 2020ARB.P./511/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The court allowed the petition and appointed a sole arbitrator, permitting the respondent to challenge the underlying agreements before the arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. Justice K. K. Lahoti as sole arbitrator; liberty granted to respondent to challenge agreement validity.

Abhijit Singh Raghav Vs Mohd.Yaqub Qureshi — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2020)

¶1

$~O-1

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

ARB.P. 511/2019

¶4

ABHIJIT SINGH RAGHAV ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Sanjeev Malhotra, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

MOHD.YAQUB QURESHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Satya Prakash Gauram, Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Mr.L.Chand and Mr.Akhilesh Kumar, Advocates

¶7

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

¶8

¶9

O R D E R 17.01.2020

¶10

The petitioner is seeking appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The petitioner has claims to the tune of Rs.1,46,70,000/-.

¶11

The arbitration agreement between the parties is contained in clause No.7 of the MOU dated 15^th January, 2017. The petitioner invoked the arbitration vide notice dated 27^th December, 2018.

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondent submits on instructions that MOU dated 15^th January, 2017 was signed by the respondent but the respondent wants to raise a challenge to the contents of the MOU on the ground that respondent is an illiterate person and he signed the MOU dated 15^th January, 2017 without reading and understanding its contents. It is further submitted that the respondent wants to raise a challenge to the validity of the agreement dated 21^st March, 2016. These contentions have to be considered by the arbitrator.

¶13

The petition is allowed. Mr. Justice K. K. Lahoti, former Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court (Mobile No.9425152000) is appointed as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶14

The respondent is at liberty to raise objections relating to the MOU dated 15^th January, 2017 and the agreement dated 21^st March, 2016 before the learned arbitrator.

¶15

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

¶16

The learned arbitrator shall ensure the compliance of Section 12 read with Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Schedule of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.

¶17

The fee of the learned arbitrator shall be in accordance with the Schedule of fees prescribed under the Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre (Administrative Costs and Arbitrators’ Fees) Rules.

¶18

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

¶19

Copy of this order be sent to the learned arbitrator.

¶20

Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the parties under the signature of the Court Master.

¶21

J.R. MIDHA, J.

¶22

JANUARY 17, 2020 mamta

Abhijit Singh Raghav v. Mohd.Yaqub Qureshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhijit Singh Raghav v. Mohd.Yaqub Qureshi

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

Masyc Projects Private Limited Vs Tata Steel Bsl Limiited (Erstwhile:Bhushan Steel Limited)

Commdel Consulting Services Pvt.Ltd Vs Tv 18 Home Shopping Network Limited

Masyc Projects Private Limited Vs Tata Steel Bsl Limited(Erstwhile Bhushan Steel Limited)

M/S V2 Retail Limited Vs Vijay Singh

Strides Pharma Science Limited Vs Central Medical Services Society

All India Tennis Association Vs Prasar Bharti (Broadcasting Corporation of India)