Allowed

Mr Radheyshyam v. Yfc Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC7 Feb 2024ARB.P./1021/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought appointment of an arbitrator for unpaid dues under two work orders containing arbitration clauses; respondent alleged a later novated work order without such clause. Court found arbitration clause existed in admitted work orders and claims were within limitation, leaving novation and arbitrability to the arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Mr. Virinder Mehta appointed sole arbitrator; arbitration under DIAC aegis; remuneration per Fourth Schedule; declaration under Section 12 required.

Mr Radheyshyam Vs Yfc Projects Pvt. Ltd. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

ARB.P. 1021/2023 MR RADHEYSHYAM ..... Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Udit Maniktala, Mr. Mohit Sharma, Mr. Kritik, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

YFC PROJECTS PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Vibhor Garg & Sidhant Bhatia Advs.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 07.02.2024

¶9

This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶10

The petitioner relies on Work Order dated 19.02.2018 and another Work Order dated 25.07.2019 both of which contain an arbitration clause. 3. He states that since the petitioner has not been paid amounts due and payable under the two work orders, the petitioner invoked the arbitration by the legal notice dated 18.04.2023 and further since payments were not made, the present petition has been filed.

¶11

Mr. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that the first work order stood novated by another work order dated 23.10.2018 bearing No. WO-CC 127/0086 which did not contain an Arbitration Clause. 5. Mr. Maniktala, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said work order has been fabricated only for the purpose of this petition and the said work order was never accepted, signed and even communicated to the petitioner.

¶12

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 17/12/2024 at 15:03:41

¶13

The petitioner has not performed any work pursuant to the work order dated 23.10.2018. While deciding Section 11 petition, this court is only required to broadly see the existence of the arbitration clause, the claims if are within the period of limitation and the jurisdiction of the court.

¶14

The work orders dated 19.02.2018 and 25.07.2019 are both admitted by the respondent and contain the arbitration clause. The claims as alleged by the petitioner are also within the period of limitation. 8. The question whether there is another work order or not and whether the same constitutes a binding contract between the parties, can only be decided by the arbitrator only after the parties file their claims, counter claims and evidence. 9. The question of arbitrability of the claims is also left open to be decided by the sole arbitrator. 10. For the said reasons, the petition is allowed. Since the parties are still having disputes between them, the following directions are issued:-

¶15

i) Mr. Virinder Mehta, (Advocate) (Mob. No.9811151865) is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. ii) The arbitration will be held under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi hereinafter, referred to as the ‘DIAC’). The remuneration of the learned Arbitrator shall be in terms of the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. iii) The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration in terms of Section 12 of the Act prior to entering into the reference.

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 17/12/2024 at 15:03:41

¶18

iv) It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the parties, including as to the arbitrability of any of the claim, any other preliminary objection, as well as claims on merits of the dispute of either of the parties, are left open for adjudication by the learned arbitrator.

¶19

v) The parties shall approach the learned Arbitrator within two weeks from today.

¶20

The petition is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶21

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶22

FEBRUARY 7, 2024/NG

¶23

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 17/12/2024 at 15:03:41

Mr Radheyshyam v. Yfc Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Radheyshyam v. Yfc Projects Pvt. Ltd.

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

M/S Ishvakoo India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd.

M/S Spg Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. through Mr Rahul Chauhan Ar Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi

Indigrid Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs Genestore India Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Globe Civil Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

S.C. Aggarwal,(Since Deceased) Vs B. K Goel &

M/S Sunheri Bagh Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd.