Disposed

Ajay Aggarwal HUF v. Magicon Impex Private Ltd.

Delhi HC6 Dec 2024ARB.P./1075/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 11(6) for appointment of arbitrator over disputes under service agreements containing an arbitration clause. The Court found a prima facie agreement existed despite the respondent's objection and appointed Mukul Gupta, Senior Advocate, as Sole Arbitrator, leaving validity of the arbitration clause open for the tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Mr. Mukul Gupta, Senior Advocate, appointed as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties.

Ajay Aggarwal HUF Vs Magicon Impex Private Ltd. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 1075/2023

¶4

AJAY AGGARWAL HUF .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Rahul Mangla, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

MAGICON IMPEX PRIVATE LTD .....Respondent

¶8

Through: Mr. Rajat Srivastava, Advocate.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶10

O R D E R % 06.12.2024

¶11

The Petitioner has approached this Court under Section 11(6) & 11(8)(B) for the Arbitration & Conciliation Act for appointment of Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes which has arisen under the agreement which have been entered into between the parties under which the Petitioner was to provide services to the Respondent.

¶12

The first agreement was entered into between the parties on 18.07.2017 and was for a period of one year. The agreement was renewed on 19.02.2019, again for a period of one year. A third agreement was entered into between the parties on 11.12.2019. All the agreements contains an arbitration clause. Clause 11 of the said agreement entered into on 11.12.2019 reads as under:-

¶13

“ 11. ARBITRATION

¶14

On the event of any disagreement or disputes between the AGENT AND THE COMPANY, arising in

¶15

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 02/07/2025 at 00:18:56

¶16

connection with this Agreement or its execution, the same will be settled in an amicable manner and if no settlement could be reached within 30.days, the same shall be referred to the sole Arbitrator who shall be appointed by the "Company" in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any other statutory amendment thereof. The place of arbitration shall be at Delhi. Any order, direction, award of the aforesaid Arbitrator shall be final and binding on both. the parties. ”

¶17

It is stated that disputes have arisen between the parties. A notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act has been issued by the Petitioner on 05.04.2022. It is stated that since the disputes have yet not been resolved, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant petition for appointment of Arbitrator.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the Respondent raises an objection that the agreement dated 11.12.2019 is not signed by the Respondent. A perusal of the agreement dated 11.12.2019, especially, the last page, indicates signatures of both parties. This Court is of the opinion that prima facie there exists an agreement.

¶19

Accordingly, Mr. Mukul Gupta, Senior Advocate, (Mob. No. 9810135004) is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.

¶20

However, it is open for the Respondent to contest that there is no valid arbitration agreement and the learned Arbitrator is requested to proceed ahead to adjudicate this issue without being influenced by the fact that this Court has appointed an Arbitrator.

¶21

The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the Schedule of

¶22

¶23

Fee under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶24

The learned Arbitrator is also requested to file the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 within a week of entering on reference.

¶25

All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the claims/counter-claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Arbitrator on their merits, in accordance with law.

¶26

Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the contentions of the parties. 11. The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms along with pending application(s), if any.

¶27

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

¶28

DECEMBER 6, 2024 hsk

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

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 02/07/2025 at 00:18:56

Ajay Aggarwal HUF v. Magicon Impex Private Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Aggarwal HUF v. Magicon Impex Private 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

Aditya Birla Finance Limited Vs Armax Health Private Limited & Ors.

Halwasiya Developments Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sterling Agro Industries Limited

Riddhi Siddhi Associates Vs National Highways Authority of India

North East Engineering and Construction (Neecon) Vs Brahmaputra Cracker and Polymer Ltd.

North East Engineering and Construction (Neecon) Vs Brahmaputra Cracker and Polymer Ltd.

Ms Himalayan Flora and Aromas Pvt. Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi