Disposed

Mahima Production Ltd. v. Mads Creations Pvt.Ltd.

Delhi HC22 Nov 2024O.M.P.(T)/3/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator as non est, relying on Perkins Eastman. The Court noted the claim was under Rs. 2 crore and suggested approaching the competent court, extending interim protection restraining the arbitrator for three weeks, and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Protection extended restraining the arbitrator from proceeding for three weeks to enable petitioner to approach the competent court; petition disposed of.

Mahima Production Ltd. Vs Mads Creations Pvt.Ltd. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~36

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P.(T) 3/2024 & I.A. 3403/2024

¶4

MAHIMA PRODUCTION LTD. .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Kunal Kalra, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

MADS CREATIONS PVT.LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Archit Verma ,Advocate.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶10

O R D E R % 22.11.2024

¶11

The Petitioner has approached this Court primarily to declare the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator by the Respondent which is a unilateral appointment, as non est in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Limited, (2020) 20 SCC 760.

¶12

It is stated that the claim before the Arbitrator is less than Rs.2 crore. An objection is raised by the Respondent stating that this Court will not have the jurisdiction under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act.

¶13

Since the claim of the Respondent is less than Rs.2 crore, this Court gave a suggestion to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to approach the court of competent jurisdiction in light of Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act to get a declaration that the appointment of Arbitrator is non est. However, the court of competent jurisdiction would not have the competence to appoint an Arbitrator in view of the Section 11 of the

¶14

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/11/2024 at 12:01:48

¶15

Arbitration & Conciliation Act.

¶16

In view of the fact that the judgment of the Apex Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Limited, (2020) 20 SCC 760, covers this case completely, this Court is inclined to extend the protection granted by this Court vide Order dated 16.02.2024 restraining the Arbitrator to proceed ahead in the matter for a period of three weeks from today to enable the Petitioner to approach the court of competent jurisdiction.

¶17

The petition is disposed of along with pending application(s), if any.

¶18

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

¶19

NOVEMBER 22, 2024 hsk

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/11/2024 at 12:01:48

Mahima Production Ltd. v. Mads Creations Pvt.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahima Production Ltd. v. Mads Creations Pvt.Ltd.

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

Subhash Dawar Vs Kailash Dawar

National Highways Authority of India Vs Mbl Infrastructures Limited

Karam Chand Thapar and Bros Cs Ltd. Vs Nhpc Limited

White Dolphine Media Vs Mr. Rabiul Islam

Reza Daru Pars Company & Ors. Vs Nani Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anrs

Jupiter Wagons Ltd. Vs Union of India, Ministry of Defence