Disposed

Information Tv Private Limited v. Jitendra Dahyabhai Patel

Delhi HC6 Feb 2024ARB.P./1143/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Respondent sought clarification on cost bearing for arbitration. Court held Petitioner bears entire cost due to delay in Section 11(6) petition. Court fixed lumpsum arbitrator fee of Rs. 10 lakhs plus administrative fees, to be deposited by Petitioner within eight weeks. Application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Costs fixed at Rs. 10,50,000 to be deposited by Petitioner within 8 weeks; application disposed of.

Information Tv Private Limited Vs Jitendra Dahyabhai Patel — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~3 (OS)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P.-1143/2023 & I.A. 42162/2024 INFORMATION TV PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Siddharth Bambha, Mr. Rohit Bohra & Ms. Nandana Menon, Advs.

¶3

versus

¶4

JITENDRA DAHYABHAI PATEL ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Aditya Choksi, Mr. Arpit Gupta and Mr. Divya Pratap Parmar, Advs. (M:7567360018)

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

¶7

O R D E R % 25.10.2024

¶8

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. I.A. 42162/2024 in ARB.P.-1143/2023

¶9

The present application has been moved by the Respondent seeking a clarification of final order dated 6^th February, 2024 as to who has to bear the costs of the arbitration in respect of the claim and counter claim.

¶10

A perusal of the order dated 6^th February, 2024 shows clearly that the entire cost of the arbitration has to be borne by the Petitioner. This is clear from a reading of paragraph 18 and 19 which read as under:

¶11

“18. In view of the above position, the following directions are issued:

¶12

i) The disputes between the parties arising out of MoU dated 1st May, 2018 are referred to arbitration by a Sole Arbitrator. Mr. Sandeep Mahapatra, Advocate (Address: F- 112 City Apartment, Vasundhra Enclave, Delhi-110096, Mob No.9811472444, email: [email protected] ) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate

¶13

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 11/11/2024 at 11:20:21

¶14

the disputes. The arbitration shall take place under the aegis of the DIAC. The fee of the Sole Arbitrator would be as per the IV Schedule of the 1996 Act, as modified by the DIAC Rules.

¶15

ii) At this stage, due to the delay and the manner in which the Section 11(6) petition has been filed by the Petitioner, post the closure of the criminal proceedings, with the consent of parties, it is directed that the Petitioner shall bear the entire cost of the arbitral proceedings, subject to the final award to be passed by the ld. Arbitrator . In the final award, ld. Arbitrator is free to apportioned the cost in the manner as it deems appropriate;

¶16

iii) In regard to the order passed under Section 9 of the 1996 Act, since it remains in effect until the conclusion of arbitral proceedings, and considering the substantial delay in invoking the arbitration clause between 2020 and 2021 up to the filing of the Section 11(6) petition, the ld. Arbitrator shall decide. Should the Petitioner seek any continuation of the said order, they must approach the ld. Arbitrator. Any such application under Section 17 of the 1996 Act would be considered on its own merits.

¶17

iv) The closure report in relation to any criminal proceedings or any observations made in the Section 9 petition or in the present petition shall not have any bearing on the final adjudication by the ld. Arbitrator.

¶18

19. The Respondent is free to file its counterclaim also before the ld. Arbitrator .”

¶19

The difficulty appears to be that the claim of the Petitioner is to the tune of approximately Rs.2 crores with the prayer for injunction but the

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 11/11/2024 at 11:20:21

¶22

counter claim of the Respondent is to the tune of Rs. 10 crores. As per the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (‘DIAC’) the total fee of the Arbitrator is coming to Rs. 18,42,242/- along with Rs. 50,000/- for the miscellaneous expenses. Thus, the DIAC has asked the Petitioner and the Respondent to pay a fee of Rs. 9,71,121/-.

¶23

A perusal of the judgment dated 6^th February, 2024 shows that the Petitioner has to bear the entire cost. However, considering the claims and counter claims, this Court fixes a lumpsum fee for the ld. Arbitrator, of Rs.10,00,000/- for adjudicating both the claims and the counter claim. The entire amount of Rs.10,00,000/- with the administrative fee of Rs.50,000/shall be deposited by the Petitioner with the DIAC, within a period of eight weeks from today. Upon deposit of the Arbitrator’s fee of Rs.10,00,000/and the administrative fees of Rs.50,000/-, ld. Arbitrator shall proceed with the matter. 50% of the fee can be released by the DIAC at this stage and 50% can be released at the time when the award is passed.

¶24

List before the Arbitrator on 22^nd January, 2025.

¶25

Application is disposed of.

¶26

Copy of this order be communicated to the Ld. Arbitrator - Mr. Sandeep Mohapatra, Advocate (M:9811472444) .

¶27

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

¶28

OCTOBER 25, 2024 dj/bh

¶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 11/11/2024 at 11:20:21

Information Tv Private Limited v. Jitendra Dahyabhai Patel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Information Tv Private Limited v. Jitendra Dahyabhai Patel

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

Premco Rail Enginners Ltd. Vs Container Corporation of India Ltd.

Kriva Corporation Vs Tipping Mr Pink Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Swastik Oil Products Manufacturing Navsari Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Aom Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Delhi Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (Dtidcl)

Naseeb Singh Vs Delhi Transport Corporation

Mrs. Dr. Manju Nimesh & Anr. Vs Mr. Ajay Kumar Nayyar