Allowed

Brilltech Engineers Private Limited v. Romsons Group Private Limited

Delhi HC15 Apr 2024ARB.P./1091/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court allowed a petition under section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, for the appointment of a sole arbitrator. Validating the arbitration agreement under the A&C Act, the court appointed Ms. Nina Nariman as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from a contract agreement dated 31.08.2021, with proceedings to be conducted under the Delhi International

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Ms. Nina Nariman as Sole Arbitrator under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

Brilltech Engineers Private Limited Vs Romsons Group Private Limited — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 1091/2023

¶4

BRILLTECH ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankur Singhal, Advocate via video-conferencing.

¶5

versus

¶6

ROMSONS GROUP PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate via videoconferencing.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R

¶9

% 15.04.2024

¶10

By way of the present petition under section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 (‘A&C Act’), the petitioner seeks appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes that are stated to have arisen with the respondent from Contract Agreement dated 31.08.2021 (‘Agreement’).

¶11

Notice on this petition was issued on 17.10.2023; consequent where upon reply dated 24.01.2024 has been filed by the respondent.

¶12

Mr. Ankur Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this court to clause 66 of the General Conditions of Contract (‘GCCs’) which comprises the arbitration agreement; and contemplates reference of disputes between the parties to arbitration in accordance with the A&C Act; with the ‘venue’ of arbitration being at Delhi.

¶13

For completeness, it may be recorded that a separate territorial jurisdiction provision is also contained in clause 66.5 of the GCCs,

¶14

ARB.P. 1091/2023 Page 1 of 3

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 22/04/2024 at 14:02:49

¶17

which subjects the contract between the parties to the jurisdiction of competent courts at Delhi.

¶18

Though the arbitration agreement also contemplates that the sole arbitrator would be appointed by the respondent/M/s. Romsons Group Pvt. Ltd., that part of the arbitration clause is, in any case, untenable in law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. vs. HSCC (India) Ltd.¹

¶19

As per the record, the petitioner invoked arbitration vide Notice dated 19.09.2023; and it transpires that the respondent replied to the said notice vide reply dated 21.09.2023.

¶20

Upon a conspectus of the averments contained in the petition, the stand taken by the respondent in their reply, and the submissions made, this court is satisfied that there is a valid and subsisting arbitration agreement between the parties; that this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present petition; and also that the disputes that are stated to have arisen between the parties, as setout inter-alia in invocation notice dated 19.09.2023, do not appear exfacie to be non-arbitrable.

¶21

In view of the above, at this stage, learned counsel for the parties jointly request that this court may appoint an arbitrator; and then refer the matter for arbitration under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, New Delhi (‘DIAC’), keeping all their respective factual and legal contentions open.

¶22

1 (2020) 20 SCC 760

¶23

ARB.P. 1091/2023 Page 2 of 3

¶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 22/04/2024 at 14:02:49

¶26

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and Ms. Nina Nariman, Advocate (Cellphone No.: +91 9873755614) is appointed as the learned Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties; with arbitration proceedings to be conducted under the aegis of the DIAC, in accordance with applicable rules.

¶27

The learned Sole Arbitrator would furnish to the parties requisite disclosures as required under section 12 of the A&C Act; and in the event there is any impediment to the appointment on that count, the parties are given liberty to file an appropriate application in this court.

¶28

The learned Arbitrator shall then proceed with the arbitral proceedings in accordance with the rules and regulations of DIAC and subject to arbitrator’s fee and arbitration costs, as may be applicable.

¶29

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

¶30

A copy of this order be communicated forthwith to the Co-ordinator, DIAC, for information and compliance.

¶31

A copy of this order be communicated by the Registry via e-mail to the learned Sole Arbitrator, as also to learned counsel for the parties.

¶32

The petition stands disposed-of in the above terms.

¶33

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of.

¶34

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

¶35

APRIL 15, 2024 /ds

¶36

ARB.P. 1091/2023 Page 3 of 3

¶37

This is a digitally signed order.

¶38

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 22/04/2024 at 14:02:49

Brilltech Engineers Private Limited v. Romsons Group Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brilltech Engineers Private Limited v. Romsons Group Private Limited

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

M/S Mahesh Chand Contractors Vs Container Corporation of India Ltd.

M/S. Ivy Ecoenergy India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Inox Green Energy Services Ltd.

M/S. Vanilla Clean Power Private Limited Vs M/S. Inox Green Energy Services Ltd.

M/S Instapower Limited Vs M/S Osram Lighting Private Limited

Oil Natural Gas Corporation Vs M/S Markian Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Shri Radhey Buildprop Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs Adel Landmarks Limited