Allowed

Sanvik Engineers India Pvt. Ltd. v. Devyani International Ltd.

Delhi HC6 Sept 2024ARB.P./235/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses an application to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent, despite not filing a reply, expressed no objection to arbitration during oral proceedings. The Court appointed Mr. Piyush Sharma as the sole arbitrator and directed him to follow the Fourth Schedule for fees.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. Piyush Sharma as sole arbitrator. Direction to comply with Section 12(2) and Fourth Schedule fees.

Sanvik Engineers India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Devyani International Ltd. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 235/2024

¶4

SANVIK ENGINEERS INDIA PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Zubin John, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

DEVYANI INTERNATIONAL LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Raj Grover, Adv.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

¶8

¶9

O R D E R (ORAL) 06.09.2024

¶10

1. The reply filed by the respondent is not on record. However, Mr. Gaurav Raj Grover, learned Counsel for the respondent, on being queried by the court, submits that his client has no objection to the disputes being referred to arbitration.

¶11

2. The dispute between the parties arises out of a lease deed dated 23 December 2022, which envisaged, in the following clause, resolution of disputes by arbitration:

¶12

“13. Arbitration

¶13

13.1 Any dispute or difference arising between the Parties shall be resolved amicably at the first instance. Unresolved disputes, shall be submitted to arbitration to a sole arbitrator. The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 along with the Rules there under and any amendments thereto. The arbitration shall be conducted in English. The decision/award of the arbitrator shall be final/conclusive and binding on the Parties. The seat and venue of the arbitration shall be at New Delhi.”

¶14

3. On 11 January 2024, the petitioner addressed a notice to the

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 10.0 9.2024 13:13:47

¶18

Digitally Signed By: AJIT KUMAR ARB.P. 235/2024 Signing Da te:1 0.09.2024 13:15:34

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

respondent under Section 21 of the 1996 Act, seeking reference of the disputes between the parties to arbitration. The respondent did not reply to the said notice. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court under Section 11(5) of the 1996 Act.

¶21

4. As already noticed, learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to the reference of the dispute to arbitration.

¶22

5. The claim of the petitioner against the respondent is in the region of ₹ 17 lakhs.

¶23

6. Accordingly, this Court appoints Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate (Tel: 9810222509) as the arbitrator to arbitrate on the dispute between the parties.

¶24

7. The arbitrator shall be entitled to charge fees as per the Fourth Scheule to the 1996 Act

¶25

8. The arbitrator is also requested to file requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the 1996 Act within a week of entering on the reference.

¶26

9. The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶27

C.HARI SHANKAR, J

¶28

SEPTEMBER 6, 2024/ dsn

¶29

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Page 2 of 2 By:CHANDRASHEKHARANHARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 10.0 9.2024 13:13:47

¶33

Digitally Signed By: AJIT KUMAR ARB.P. 235/2024 Signing Da te:1 0.09.2024 13:15:34

Sanvik Engineers India Pvt. Ltd. v. Devyani International Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanvik Engineers India Pvt. Ltd. v. Devyani International Ltd.

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

Girdhari Lal Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Thriving Farm Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Sushil Chaudhary and Anr.

M/S Jmc-Chec Joint Venture Vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation

Parsvnath Developers Limited Vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited

Daya Sagar Sharma Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Balajee Infratech and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Chief Engineer National Highway P W Public Works Department Government of Maharashtra