Allowed

Paramount Premier Private Limited v. Priyanka

Delhi HC30 Jan 2024ARB.P./1083/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a petition filed under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from a franchise agreement, noting the respondent had no objection to the appointment.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. Anil Kher as Sole Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; directions issued for arbitration to be conducted under aegis of DIAC.

Paramount Premier Private Limited Vs Priyanka — Specific Performance | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 1083/2023

¶4

PARAMOUNT PREMIER PRIVATE LIMITED

¶5

..... Petitioner Through: Ms Jasmine Damkewala, Ms Vaishali Sharma, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

PRIYANKA

¶8

..... Respondent Through: Ms. Ritika Jhurani, Mr. KK Tiwari, Mr. AK Gupta, Advs.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 30.01.2024

¶11

This is a petition filed under Section 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent arising out of the Due Amount Franchise Agreement cum MoU dated 03.02.2021.

¶12

The arbitration Clause is contained in Clause „p‟ of the MoU which reads as under:-

¶13

“(p) Any dispute or disagreement qua the abovesaid matter(s) shall be referred to sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the first party vide Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the seat of Arbitration shall be at Delhi and nowhere else. As regards other modes of adjudication or dispute resolution by way of courts or police or any other appropriate authority the jurisdictional seat/Place shall be at Delhi alone.”

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 00:23:40

¶16

The learned counsel for the respondent states that there are no amounts due and payable by the respondent to the petitioner but the respondent has no objection to the appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the same.

¶17

For the said reasons, the petition is allowed. Since the parties are still having disputes between them, the following directions are issued:-

¶18

i) Mr. Anil Kher, Sr. Adv. (Mob. No. 9810072729) is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶19

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.

¶20

iii) The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration in terms of Section 12 of the Act prior to entering into the reference.

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

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 00:23:40

¶24

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

¶25

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶26

JANUARY 30, 2024 / (MS)

¶27

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶28

Paramount Premier Private Limited v. Priyanka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramount Premier Private Limited v. Priyanka

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

Satya Prakash Gupta & Anr. Vs Czar Buildwell Private Limited & Ors.

Prayag Polytech Private Limited Vs Iworid Digital Solutions Private Limited & Ors.

Prayag Polytech Private Limited Vs Good Marketing and Sales Private Limited & Ors.

Teknow Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited

Aventus Human Capital Partners LLP Vs Ghv Advanced Care Private Limited

M/S Transstroy (India) Pvt. Ltd. Hyderabad Vs National Highways Authority of India & Anr.