Dismissed

Leap Infraasys Pvt. Ltd. v. Texmaco Rail and Engineering Ltd.

Delhi HC9 Apr 2024ARB.P./243/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court appointed Mr. Justice Vinod Goel as sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, following precedent that unilateral appointment was impermissible, with parties consenting to DIAC proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of by referring disputes to arbitration with Mr. Justice Vinod Goel as sole arbitrator under DIAC rules.

Leap Infraasys Pvt. Ltd. Vs Texmaco Rail and Engineering Ltd. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~3

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

ARB.P. 243/2024 & I.A. 4284/2024

¶4

LEAP INFRAASYS PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankit Miglani, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

TEXMACO RAIL AND ENGINEERING LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sameer Parekh, Ms. Smita Bhargava, Ms. Sreeparna Basak and Ms. Ruchi Chauhan, Advocates.

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶8

O R D E R % 09.04.2024

¶9

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“the Act”], for appointment of an arbitrator for adjudicating disputes between the parties under a Letter of Intent dated 11.04.2019. The General Terms and Conditions contain an arbitration clause [Clause 19], which provides for adjudication of disputes by a sole arbitrator. New Delhi is designated as the place of arbitration.

¶10

Although, the clause provides for unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by the Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer of the respondent, it is an admitted position that such a unilateral appointment is impermissible in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in TRF Limited vs. Energo Engineering Projects Limited [(2017) 8 SCC 377] and

¶11

Page 1 of 2

¶12

ARB.P. 243/2024

¶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 15/04/2024 at 11:40:24

¶14

Perkins Eastman Architects DPC vs. HSCC (India) Limited [(2020) 20 SCC 760] and other judgment following these.

¶15

Disputes having arisen between the parties, the petitioner invoked arbitration by a communication dated 26.09.2023, which did not elicit a response.

¶16

Mr. Sameer Parekh, learned counsel, appears on behalf of the respondent pursuant to notice issued on 23.02.2024, and submits that the respondent has no objection to the appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes.

¶17

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of by referring the disputes between the parties to arbitration of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod Goel, former Judge of this Court [Tel: 9910384637], under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Shershah Road, New Delhi [“DIAC”]. The arbitration proceedings will be governed by the Rules of DIAC, including as to remuneration of the learned Arbitrator.

¶18