The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator in an arbitration petition filed under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act arising from a dealership agreement dispute, despite the agreement nominating the respondent's CEO to appoint the arbitrator.
Appointment of Ms. Priya Kumar as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 193/2024
GOYAL EBIKES ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sandeep Dash, Mr. Bilal Ikram & Mr. Prakhar Gupta, Advocates (M9920427458)
versus
OKINAWA AUTOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Anurag Bhatt and Mr. Lokesh Pathak, Advs. (M- 8527084056 )
CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R % 03.04.2024
Page 1 of 3
ARB.P. 193/2024
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 06/04/2024 at 11:49:31
36.1 in the dealership agreement, M/s. Goyal Bikes invoked the arbitration clause vide communication dated 27th November, 2023.
“36.1 In case of any dispute, claims or difference whatsoever arising between the Parties out of or relating to this Agreement or the validity or the breach of terms and conditions thereof, including all aspects governing the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement and other documentation pursuant hereto, the same shall be settled amicably by the Parties. Falling such settlement, the same shall be referred to a sole Arbitrator, to be appointed by the Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer of OAPL for arbitration, as per the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended and the award passed by such sole Arbitrator shall be final and binding or the Parties. 36.2 It is a term of this Agreement that in the event of such an Arbitrator to whom the matter has been originally referred is unable to act for any reason including but not limited to health reason, the Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer of OAPL shall appoint another person to act as Arbitrator. Such person shall be entitled to proceed with the reference from the stage at which it was left by his predecessor. 36.3 The venue of Arbitration Proceedings shall be New Delhi. and shall be conducted in English. The clause 36.1, 36.2 and 36.3 shall survive even after
Page 2 of 3
ARB.P. 193/2024
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 06/04/2024 at 11:49:31
expiry/termination of the Agreement so long as the disputes if any amongst the PARTIES in relation to this Agreement are not resolved in terms of this clause.”
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
APRIL 3, 2024 Rahul/dn
Page 3 of 3
ARB.P. 193/2024
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 06/04/2024 at 11:49:31
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Court can appoint a sole arbitrator when the agreement designates one party to appoint but that party fails to do so.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Goyal EbiKes
Okinawa Autotech Private Limited
Prathiba M. Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
