Dismissed

Puri Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Shri Sukhraj & Ors.

Delhi HC2 Feb 2024ARB.P./23/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court order dismissed a petition under Section 11 A&C Act for appointment of an arbitrator de facto dismissing the petition and appointing Justice S. Ravindra Bhat as Sole Arbitrator consolidating the reference with an earlier petition ARB.P. No. 52/2004 since the parties disputed same agreement.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Sole Arbitrator appointed; Reference consolidated with earlier petition; Appointment of arbitrator within ten days by parties.

Puri Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Shri Sukhraj & Ors. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 23/2024

¶4

PURI CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. M. R. Shamshad, Mr. Arijit Sarkar & Ms. Nabeela Jamli, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

SHRI SUKHRAJ & ORS. ..... Respondents

¶8

Through: Mr. Prathviraj, Advocate for R-1 to 4.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

¶11

O R D E R % 02.02.2024

¶12

Pursuant to last order dated 18.01.2024, affidavit of service dated 30.01.2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, deposing that they have effected dasti service of the notice upon respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 namely Shri Balraj, Shri Gajraj and Shri Roop Chand. Copies of the notice, signed in acknowledgment of receipt by the said respondents or their representatives, have been appended with the affidavit.

¶13

That apart, Mr. M. R. Shamshad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, that in a cross-petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act (‘A&C Act’) by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 vide ARB.P. No. 52/2004, the said respondents had sought appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.

¶14

ARB.P. 23/2024 Page 1 of 3

¶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 16/12/2024 at 14:22:24

¶16

The disputes sought to be raised in the present petition are also stated to have emanated from the same Collaboration/Development Agreement dated 24.10.2006 and Supplementary Agreement dated 26.10.2010, that are subject matter of the other arbitration petition bearing ARB. P. No. 52/2024.

¶17

Vide order dated 15.01.2024, the said arbitration petition has been disposed-of, appointing Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, former Judge of the Supreme Court as the learned Sole Arbitrator in the matter.

¶18

5. Mr. Prathviraj, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1-4 points-out that in the aforesaid arbitration petition, respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were arrayed as party-respondents only for sake of completeness, since they were parties to the Collaboration Agreement, but no claim was being made against the said respondents who were therefore only pro-forma respondents .

¶19

No one is present on behalf of the respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 when the matter is called-out. No reply has been filed by any of the said respondents either.

¶20

In the circumstances, this court is satisfied that respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 in the present proceedings have been duly served; but have chosen not to be represented. Accordingly, respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are set ex-parte .

¶21

Since vide order dated 15.01.2024 made in ARB.P. No. 52/2004 titled Shri Sukhraj & Ors. vs. Puri Construction Private Limited & Ors. the disputes between the parties have already been referred to arbitration and a learned Sole Arbitrator has been appointed in the

¶22

ARB.P. 23/2024 Page 2 of 3

¶23

¶24

matter, the present petition is also disposed of appointing Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, former Judge of the Supreme Court (Cellphone No. +91 9818000160) as the learned Sole Arbitrator in the present matter as well.

¶25

It is further directed that the present reference would be part of the reference made by way of the earlier arbitration petition bearing ARB.P. No. 52/2004.

¶26

The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to fee in accordance with Fourth Schedule to the A&C Act; or as may otherwise be agreed to between the parties and the learned Arbitrator.

¶27

Parties shall share the arbitrator’s fee and arbitral costs, equally.

¶28

All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the claims/counter-claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Arbitrator on merits, in accordance with law.

¶29

Parties are directed to approach the learned Arbitrator appointed within 10 days.

¶30

A copy of this order be communicated by the Registry to the learned Sole Arbitrator.

¶31

The petition stands disposed-of in the above terms.

¶32

Other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of.

¶33

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

¶34

FEBRUARY 2, 2024/ MR

¶35

ARB.P. 23/2024 Page 3 of 3

¶36

Puri Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Shri Sukhraj & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puri Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Shri Sukhraj & 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

Mamta Jain & Anr. Vs Road Master Autotech Pvt. Ltd.

Pardeep Sharma Vs Parveen Kumar( Prop. of M/S Parmanand Offset Printers)

Innovision Limited Vs Hpcl-Mittal Energy Limited

Growth Techno Projects Ltd. Vs Ishwar Industries Ltd.

J R Creation Advertiser Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gold Max Trade N Biz P Ltd. & Anr.

M/S Indian Oil Corproration Ltd. Vs M/S Shalimar Bagh Gas Agency and Ors.