Dismissed

Orix Leasing and Financial Services India Ltd. v. Ankit Gulliya

Delhi HC9 Apr 2024ARB.P./414/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator was dismissed because the High Court of Delhi lacked territorial jurisdiction as the agreement designated the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court for such appointment. The court did not examine merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 dismissed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.

Orix Leasing and Financial Services India Ltd. Vs Ankit Gulliya — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 414/2024 ORIX LEASING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Kush Gupta, Adv.

¶4

versus

¶5

ANKIT GULLIYA ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Snigdha Singh, Mr.Kumar Shashwat,, Ms. Yashika Chadha, Advs.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 09.04.2024

¶10

I.A. 6992/2024 (exemption)

¶11

Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

Application stands disposed of.

¶13

ARB.P. 414/2024

¶14

The present petition has been filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrator.

¶15

The parties have entered into the agreement dated 08.10.2018. Article -22 of the agreement contains arbitration and jurisdiction clause which is reproduced as under;

¶16

ARTICLE-22 ARBITRATION AND JURISDICTION

¶17

22 1. In the case of any dispute or any difference between the Parties arising out of or in relation to this Agreement including dispute or difference as to the validity of this Agreement or interpretation or any of the provision of this Agreement, the same shall be resolved by mutual discussion. If the Parties fail

¶18

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 11:40:17

¶19

to settle the dispute or difference mutually within 15 days after the dispute shall have arisen then the same shall be referred to Arbitration or the sole arbitrator, appointed by the Parties by mutual agreement. If the Parties fail to agree to appoint sole Arbitrator within 45 days after the dispute shall have arisen either party shall make an application to the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court of any other person or institution appointed by him for the appointment of the Sole Arbitrator and such arbitration shall be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory modification or restructured thereof for the time being in force The provisions of this Article shall survive the termination of this Agreement. Each Party shall bear its own costs: all common costs shall be shared equally by both the Parties. The Venue of the arbitration shall be Delhi. The language of arbitration shall be English.

¶20

22.2 It is agreed by and between the Parties that the Civil Courts in Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction for any dispute arising in regard to arbitration.”

¶21

Issue notice.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondent has accepted the notice.

¶23

Learned counsel has raised an objection that in view of the article 221, as referred herein above, this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.

¶24

The bare perusal of above reproduced clause makes it clear, the application is to be made before the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court or any other person/institution appointed by him for the appointment of Sole Arbitrator. Thus there is force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent and on the face of it, this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. However, since this court does not have territorial

¶25

¶26

jurisdiction, this court have not gone into the other aspects of the petition on merit.

¶27

In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed.

¶28

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J

¶29

APRIL 9, 2024 Pallavi

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

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 11:40:17

Orix Leasing and Financial Services India Ltd. v. Ankit Gulliya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Orix Leasing and Financial Services India Ltd. v. Ankit Gulliya

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

Loveen Khosla Sole Proprietor of M/S K Sales Ser Vs Union of India

Taurant Projects Ltd. Vs Gail India Ltd. and Anr.

Satakshi Contractors Private Limited Vs Telecommunications Consultants India Limited

Brilltech Engineers Private Limited Vs Maharishi Dayanand Co-Operative Group Housing Society Limited

Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. Vs Sanjay Passi & Ors.

Amardeep Builders Vs Delhi Development Authority