Dismissed

Sainka Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Chelmsford Club Limited & Anr.

Delhi HC22 Jul 2024ARB.P./377/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed this petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Finding no valid signatures on the Articles of Agreement, the court held no binding arbitration agreement existed between the parties.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to petitioner to avail legal rights in accordance with law.

Sainka Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Chelmsford Club Limited & Anr. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 377/2024

¶4

SAINKA CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr Arun Yadav, Mr Dishant Kaushik, Ms Muskan Sharma, Mr Gaurav Chauhan, Mr Rajan Kumar Hans and Mr Mohit Raghuvanshi, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

CHELMSFORD CLUB LIMITED & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr Rajiv Bakshi and Ms Kajal Sharma, Advs. for R-1. Mr Shashank Upadhyay and Mr Raghvendra Pratap, Advs. for R-2.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 22.07.2024

¶12

This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 34 of the Articles of Agreement dated 25.09.2022.

¶13

It is stated that the petitioner was employed as contractor to carry out rehabilitation of the existing Chelmsford Club building with respondent No.1. The petitioner carried out the work as per the said Agreement.

¶14

As the dues of the petitioner were not cleared by the respondent despite repeated request, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause vide Notice dated 16.05.2023. Hence the present petition.

¶15

It is stated by Mr Bakshi, learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the respondent No. 1 has never signed said Agreement containing the arbitration clause. The same has been the stand of the respondent No.1 since the inception of the disputes. My attention has been drawn to para b of the reply

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 02/07/2025 at 00:02:45

¶18

to the Notice dated 16.05.2023 which reads as under:-

¶19

“B. That the current Managing Committee has assumed office only in January, 2023. The records available in the office of my Client show that my Client has not signed any Articles of Agreement dated 25.09.2022 as such the reliance on and reference to the said Articles of Agreement is misplaced and is of no consequence. However, it is stated that your Client was engaged to execute the work by erstwhile Managing Committee of my Client. Our Client has noticed various deficiencies in the quality of work and there was also a delay in executing the work. In fact your Client did not complete the work and rather abandoned the work. Therefore, my Client had to engage other Contractor to complete the work.”

¶20

A perusal of the said Agreement filed by the petitioner also does not shows the signatures of the respondent No.1. The same has also been stated in the reply to the notice under Section 21. There is nothing on record or shown by the petitioner to show existence of a valid binding arbitration agreement as contemplated in Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. For the said reasons, I am of the view that there is no valid arbitration agreement between the parties.

¶21

In this view of the matter, the petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to avail all its legal rights in accordance with law.

¶22

JULY 22, 2024/ sr

¶23

JASMEET SINGH, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 02/07/2025 at 00:02:45

Sainka Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Chelmsford Club Limited & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sainka Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Chelmsford Club Limited & Anr.

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 Marcadeo Enterprises Vs M/S Dhani Healthcare Limited

Louis Dreyfus Company India Private Limited Vs Rambhaj Aggarwal

M/S Megalogix Vs the Bgs Vijnatham School

M/S Aryavrat Tollways Pvt. Ltd. (Atpl) Vs Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corpn. Ltd. (Mprdc) & Anr.

Gmr Power and Urban Infra Limited Vs Patil Rail Infrastructure Private Limited

National Highways Authority of India Vs Ircon International Ltd.