Dismissed

Sandeep Kumar v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Delhi HC22 Feb 2024ARB.P./21/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act sought appointment of an arbitrator for disputes under four contracts involving deductions for losses on a fifth unexecuted work order. Counsel conceded the claims were not notified and, relying on Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. NCC Ltd., sought withdrawal; the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sandeep Kumar Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~40

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

ARB.P. 21/2024

¶4

SANDEEP KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankit Jain & Mr. Mohit Gupta, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Meharia, Ms. Tannishtha Singh, Mr. Abinash Agarwal, Advocates. [M:-9953676030]

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶8

O R D E R % 22.02.2024

¶9

By way of this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner seeks appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of disputes under four contracts between the same parties – dated 01.06.2020, 15.06.2020, 16.07.2020 and 30.07.2020 – which were issued pursuant to tenders awarded to the petitioner herein. There was a fifth tender, in respect of which a work order dated 15.05.2020 was also issued, but the contract in respect thereof was not formally executed between the parties.

¶10

The petitioner’s claims arise from deductions made under the first four contracts in respect of losses allegedly suffered by the respondent, on the ground that the fifth contract for which a work order was issued by

¶11

Page 1 of 2

¶12

ARB.P. 21/2024

¶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 26/02/2024 at 15:12:51

¶14

the respondent was not finally executed.

¶15

Mr. Amit Meharia, learned counsel for the respondent, raises various objections to the present petition, including that the petitioner’s claims are in fact in respect of the fifth contract/work order, that a single petition for appointment of an arbitrator in respect of all four contracts is not maintainable, that jurisdiction under two of the four contracts would lie with the Courts in Panipat, and that the claims are in any event nonarbitrable at this stage, as the arbitration clauses only provide for adjudication of notified claims.

¶16

Mr. Ankit Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner on the other objections, accepts that the claims sought to be arbitrated have not been notified.

¶17

In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. NCC Ltd. [(2023) 2 SCC 539], he seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to agitate the petitioner’s claims by way of appropriate proceedings at the appropriate stage.

¶18

The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

¶19

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶20

FEBRUARY 22, 2024 ‘pv’/

¶21

Page 2 of 2

¶22

ARB.P. 21/2024

¶23

Sandeep Kumar v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sandeep Kumar v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Eelevates Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Cosmos Infraestate Pvt. Ltd.

Punj Lloyd Limited Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

National Highways Authority of India Vs T. Suryanarayana Reddy

Union of India Vs Aimco Kcm Royalinfra (Jv)

Pk Healthcare Private Limited Vs Wikreate Worldwide Private Limited

Union of India Vs Ncc Limited