Disposed

Dr. Satya Prakash Gupta v. Czar Buildwell Private Limited & Ors.

Delhi HC11 Jan 2024ARB.P./42/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate a commercial dispute between the petitioner and the respondent. The court noted that both parties consented to the arbitration reference and issued directions for appointing Justice R. K. Gauba as the arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Directs that the disputes be referred to the sole arbitrator appointed, Justice R. K. Gauba (Retd.).

Dr. Satya Prakash Gupta Vs Czar Buildwell Private Limited & Ors. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 42/2023

¶4

DR. SATYA PRAKASH GUPTA ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gyanendra Kumar, Mr. Abhijit Mittal, Mr. Aukalp jain, Ms. Shaivya Singh, Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Ms. Aditi, Mr. Pulkit Khanduja, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

CZAR BUILDWELL PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

¶8

..... Respondents

¶9

Through: Mr. Prashant Mehta, Mr. Aarav Mehra, Advs.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

% 11.01.2024

¶14

By way of the present petition filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, referred to as the „A&C Act‟ ), the petitioner seeks appointment of the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties had entered into a Binding Term Sheet dated 07.12.2020, which provides that disputes with respect to the agreement shall be resolved through arbitration as per provisions of the A&C Act . It further provides that the place of arbitration would be at New Delhi.

¶16

Disputes having arisen between the parties, the petitioner invoked arbitration vide notice dated 29.09.2021.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on instructions,

¶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 01/07/2025 at 23:47:04

¶19

submits that the answering respondent has no objection to the matter being referred to the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a Sole Arbitrator. The claimed amount is stated to be Rs. 49,00,50,000/- (Rupees Forty-Nine Crores and Fifty Thousand).

¶20

Considering that both the parties have consented to the reference to the arbitral tribunal, the present petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶21

i.) The disputes between the parties under the said agreement are referred to the arbitral tribunal.

¶22

ii.) As agreed by both the counsels for the parties, Justice Mr. R. K. Gauba, (Retd. Judge, Hon’ble Supreme Court) is appointed as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶23

iii.) The remuneration of the learned Arbitrator shall be determined with the consent of the parties.

¶24

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

¶25

v.) It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the parties, including as to the arbitrability of any of the claims, any other preliminary objection, as well as claims on merits of the dispute of either of the parties, are left open for adjudication by the learned arbitrator.

¶26

The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶27

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J

¶28

JANUARY 11, 2024/AR

¶29

Dr. Satya Prakash Gupta v. Czar Buildwell Private Limited & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Satya Prakash Gupta v. Czar Buildwell Private Limited & Ors.

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 Lease Plan India Private Limited Vs M/S Aarna International

M/S Lease Plan India Private Limited Vs M/S Arihant Distributors

Hitachi Payments Services Private Limited through Its Authorised Signatory Vs Jasmeet Singh Marwah

Shalaka Infra-Tech(I) Private Limited Vs Airports Authority of India

Vasdev Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi

M/S. Techxaa Soft Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Chillitray Technologies & Ors.