Allowed

Mrs Kajal Kiran Mishra v. M/S Radiant Hues Crm Solution Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Delhi HC12 Sept 2024ARB.P./1098/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble C. Hari Shankar J. disposed of an application under Section 11(5) seeking arbitrator appointment. With prior award set aside and liberty given to reinitiate, and parties failing to agree on arbitrator, the court referred the dispute to DIAC to appoint the arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Dispute referred to Delhi International Arbitration Centre to appoint a suitable arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes.

Mrs Kajal Kiran Mishra Vs M/S Radiant Hues Crm Solution Pvt. Ltd… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~15

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 1098/2024

¶4

MRS KAJAL KIRAN MISHRA

¶5

.....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Janak Raj Rana and Mr. Vinod Patidar, Advs.

¶7

versus

¶8

M/S RADIANT HUES CRM SOLUTION PVT. LTD. AND ORS. .....Respondents

¶9

Through: Mr. Shammi Kapoor and Mr. Gaurav Varma, Advs.

¶10

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR O R D E R (ORAL) 12.09.2024

¶12

1. This is a petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996¹ , seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes between the parties.

¶13

2. An earlier round of arbitration culminated in an award dated 2 January 2023, which stands set aside by judgment dated 13 May 2024 of the learned Additional District Judge reserving liberty with the petitioner to reinitiate arbitration, as per law.

¶14

3. The petitioner thereafter addressed a notice to the respondents, seeking re-initiation of arbitration on 22 May 2024 suggesting the name of the arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes. The respondents by

¶15

1 “the 1996 Act”, hereinafter

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Page 1 of 3 Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHAR AN HARI SHANKAR Signing Da te:14 .09.2024 23:08

¶19

Digitally Signed ARB.P. 66/2024 By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:14.0 9.20 24 23:09

¶20

its reply dated 29 June 2024 objected to the arbitrator named in the petitioner’s representation and further stated that no arbitrable claims survived. In the alternative, the respondents suggested the name of another arbitrator to arbitrate on the dispute.

¶21

4. There can be no serious challenge to the prayer for appointing an arbitrator as the dispute has already sustained one round of arbitration, with the resultant award, which was against the petitioner having been set aside by the learned Additional District Judge with liberty to reinitiate arbitral proceedings. The petitioner has thereafter addressed a notice to the respondents suggesting the name of an arbitrator. The respondents has suggested the name of another person as the arbitrator.

¶22

5. The parties have therefore not been able to arrive at a consensus regarding the identity of the arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes.

¶23

6. The claim of the petitioner against the respondents is in the region of ₹ 1.73 lakhs.

¶24

7. Accordingly, this dispute is referred to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre² to appoint a suitable arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes.

¶25

8. The arbitration shall take place under the aegis of the DIAC and would abide by its rules and regulations.

¶26

Signature Not Verified2 “the DIAC”, hereinafter

¶27

Signature Not Verified Page 2 of 3 Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHAR AN HARI SHANKAR Signing Da te:14 .09.2024 23:08

¶28

Digitally Signed ARB.P. 66/2024 By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:14.0 9.20 24 23:09

¶29

9. The learned arbitrator shall be entitled to charge fees as per schedule of fees maintained by the DIAC.

¶30

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

¶31

11. Learned counsel for the respondents objects to the impleadment of Respondents 2 and 3 in this case.

¶32

12. It is seen that the agreement is only between the petitioner and Respondent 1 and, Respondent 2 has signed the agreement only on behalf of Respondent 1. As such, it is not necessary to separately implead Respondent 2 and 3 in the arbitration.

¶33

13. The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶34

C.HARI SHANKAR, J

¶35

SEPTEMBER 12, 2024 /yg

¶36

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Page 3 of 3 Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHAR AN HARI SHANKAR Signing Da te:14 .09.2024 23:08

¶40

Digitally Signed ARB.P. 66/2024 By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:14.0 9.20 24 23:09

Mrs Kajal Kiran Mishra v. M/S Radiant Hues Crm Solution Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Kajal Kiran Mishra v. M/S Radiant Hues Crm Solution Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

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

Keystone Solutions Vs K7 Group Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

M/S Prestige Agro-Tech Limited Vs Union of India through Ministry of Finance Department of Financial Services and Ors.

Surgeport Logistics Private Limited & Anr. Vs Paul Deepak Rajaratnam & Ors.

Director General Project Varsha Vs Navayuga Van Oord Jv

Iacuity Telco Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known as Xalted Information Systems Pvt. Ltd.) Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Ellora Infratech Private Limited through Its Authorized Representative Mr Imtiyaz Ahmed Ansari Vs Cloud 9 Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.