Allowed

Ms Ziiki Media Private Limited v. Dilpreet Singh Dhillon @ Dilpreet Dhillon

Delhi HC9 Feb 2024ARB.P./1369/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court, on ex-parte application due to respondent's default, satisfied itself of a valid arbitration agreement and jurisdiction, subsequently appointing Ms. Meghna Mittal Sankhla as sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes under the DIAC rules.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Ms. Meghna Mittal Sankhla as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes under the DIAC rules.

Ms Ziiki Media Private Limited Vs Dilpreet Singh Dhillon @… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 1369/2022 & I.A. 20323/2022

¶4

MS ZIIKI MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Pradeep Desodya and Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

DILPREET SINGH DHILLON @ DILPREET DHILLON

..... Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R % 09.02.2024

¶12

By way of the present petition under section 11 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 Content License Agreement dated 01.07.2020 (‘Agreement’). 2. Notice on this petition was issued on 02.12.2022.

¶13

Despite having been duly served and by reason of repeated default on part of the respondent to enter appearance in the matter, vide last order dated 07.12.2023, this court issued court notice to the respondent returnable for today, observing that the matter would be

¶14

ARB.P. 1369/2022 Page 1 of 4

¶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 21/02/2024 at 14:33:52

¶16

taken-up for hearing even if there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

¶17

Office report indicates that court notice has been duly served upon the respondent.

¶18

However, no one is present on behalf of the respondent; nor has any reply been filed.

¶19

In view of the above, this court is satisfied that the respondent has been duly served in the matter but has chosen not to be represented.

¶20

Accordingly, the respondent is set ex-parte.

¶21

Mr. Pradeep Desodya, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this court to clause 12.6 of the Agreement which comprises the arbitration agreement; and contemplates reference of disputes between the parties to arbitration in accordance with the A&C Act; with a further stipulation that the arbitration proceedings shall take place in New Delhi.

¶22

For completeness, it may be recorded, that a separate territorial jurisdiction provision is also contained in clause 12.6, which subjects the contract between the parties to the jurisdiction of competent courts at New Delhi.

¶23

As per the record, the petitioner invoked arbitration vide Notice dated 02.04.2022, to which the respondent has not sent any reply.

¶24

Upon a conspectus of the averments contained in the petition 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

¶25

ARB.P. 1369/2022 Page 2 of 4

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 21/02/2024 at 14:33:52

¶28

parties, as set-out inter-alia in invocation notice dated 02.04.2022, do not appear ex-facie to be non-arbitrable.

¶29

In view of the above, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner requests 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.

¶30

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and Ms. Meghna Mittal Sankhla, Advocate (Cellphone Nos.: +91 9871236666 and 9899912347) 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.

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

ARB.P. 1369/2022 Page 3 of 4

¶36

This is a digitally signed order.

¶37

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 21/02/2024 at 14:33:52

¶38

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.

¶39

The petition stands disposed-of in the above terms.

¶40

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

¶41

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

¶42

FEBRUARY 9, 2024 MR

¶43

ARB.P. 1369/2022 Page 4 of 4

¶44

Ms Ziiki Media Private Limited v. Dilpreet Singh Dhillon @ Dilpreet Dhillon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Ziiki Media Private Limited v. Dilpreet Singh Dhillon @ Dilpreet Dhillon

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

Cy Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Cinda Engineering and Construction Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Balwinder Singh Saini Vs the General Manager Northern Railway

Ms Sharma Kalypso Pvt. Ltd. Vs Engineers India Limited

Patil Construction Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Union of India through Ministry of Road Transport Highways

Abhishek Dutt Vs Surender Goel and Others

City X Ray and Scan Clinic Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mata Roop Rani Maggo Hospital Pvt. Ltd.