Allowed

M/S Pioneer Publicity Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Lakhani Footwears (P) Ltd.

Delhi HC9 Sept 2024ARB.P./263/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought appointment of an arbitrator under a 2016 advertising/branding rights agreement revoked after defaults. The respondent objected on territorial jurisdiction. Holding that payment was payable at Delhi, the court found part cause of action arose in Delhi, allowed the petition, and appointed a sole arbitrator under DIAC.

What did the court decide?

Sole arbitrator appointed; arbitration to be held under DIAC aegis per DIAC Fees Rules 2018; parties to approach arbitrator within two weeks.

M/S Pioneer Publicity Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Lakhani… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~1

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

ARB.P. 263/2024

¶4

M/S PIONEER PUBLICITY CORPORATION PVT LTD

¶5

.....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Kamaldeep Adv. for Ms. Niyati Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Adv.

¶7

versus

¶8

M/S LAKHANI FOOTWEARS (P) LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Udit Chauhan, Mr. Aditya P. Arora, Ms. Kashish Khurana, Mr. Ritvik Chouhan, Advs.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R

¶10

¶11

09.09.2024

¶12

This is a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties.

¶13

The semi-naming rights and advertising rights were purchased by the respondent vide Agreement dated 16.06.2016 from the petitioner for a period of 5 years.

¶14

Since there were defaults, the petitioner revoked the contract on 31.07.2022 and invoked arbitration vide Legal Notice dated 28.03.2023.

¶15

The arbitration clause is Clause 8 of the Agreement, which reads as under:-

¶16

“8. That Any dispute between First Party and Second Party will be settled under the provisions of Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Arbitrator for such purpose will be appointed mutually.”

¶17

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 13/09/2024 at 12:15:21

¶18

The respondent has filed a reply, wherein besides raising technical objections, the only objection is with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

¶19

It is stated that the petitioner has granted branding rights to the respondent for Metro Station at Faridabad. The Agreement was entered into at Faridabad and the performance of the Agreement was at Faridabad. The respondent does not have any registered office, as well as the branch office of the petitioner is at Faridabad.

¶20

Clause 9 of the said Agreement reads as under:-

¶21

“9. That this agreement is subject to the Jurisdiction of Delhi Courts in the unlikely event of any legal dispute between the First Party and the Second Party”.

¶22

Once there is a jurisdiction clause, if any part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of that court, the jurisdiction of other courts are ousted. Clause 9 would not be applicable only in case where there is no cause of action or part of cause of action having arisen in Delhi.

¶23

My attention has been drawn to the invoices issued by the petitioner, wherein Clause 2 of the Terms & Conditions reads as under:-

¶24

“2. Draft/Payees A/c cheque to be drawn in favour of PIONEER PUBLICITY CORPORATION PVT LTD. Outstation payments solicited by Demand Draft payble at Delhi.”

¶25

Once the payment is payable at Delhi, I am of the view that a part of cause of action has arisen at Delhi and hence, this Court will have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present petition.

¶26

For the said reasons, the petition is allowed and disposed of with the following directions:-

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

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 13/09/2024 at 12:15:21

¶29

i) Mr. Jagdeep Sharma, Adv (Mob. No. 9811297224) is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶30

ii) The arbitration will be held under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘DIAC’).

¶31

iii) The remuneration of the learned Arbitrator shall be in terms of DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators’ Fees) Rules, 2018.

¶32

iv) The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration in terms of Section 12 of the Act prior to entering into the reference.

¶33

v) It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the parties, including as to the arbitrability of any of the claim, any other preliminary objection, as well as claims/counter-claims and merits of the dispute of either of the parties, including the fact of whether the petitioner has committed any illegality and made the building contrary to the sanction plan in an illegal manner is left open for adjudication by the learned arbitrator.

¶34

vi) The parties shall approach the learned Arbitrator within two weeks from today.

¶35

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶36

SEPTEMBER 9, 2024/NG

¶37

This is a digitally signed order.

¶38

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 13/09/2024 at 12:15:21

M/S Pioneer Publicity Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Lakhani Footwears (P) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Pioneer Publicity Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Lakhani Footwears (P) 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

M/S Cse Infra Vs Union of India

Chief Engineer National Highways Division Uppwd Vs Mahakaleshwar Infratech Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Velocis System Pvt. Ltd. Vs Container Corporation of India Ltd.

Manoj Kumar Vs M/S India Skills Pvt. Ltd.

M S Hub Industrial Corporation Vs M S Basantar Breweries Private Limited

Nbcc (India) Limited Vs M/S R.K. Millen & Company India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.