Allowed

Guerrilla Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Navisha Soft Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC9 Jan 2024ARB.P./68/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner's petition under Section 11 to appoint an arbitrator under the DIAC rules. The court held that objections regarding the improper stamping of the arbitration agreement are outside the scope of Section 11 consideration following recent Supreme Court rulings. The dispute is referred to arbitration, and the respondent is notified to participate.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed. Disputes are referred to arbitration under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).

Guerrilla Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Navisha Soft Solutions Pvt… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~1

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

ARB.P. 68/2023 GUERRILLA INFRA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Diptiman Acharyya, Advocate.

¶4

versus

¶5

NAVISHA SOFT SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: None.

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶7

O R D E R % 09.01.2024

¶8

By way of this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, [“the Act”] the petitioner seeks appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes which have arisen between the parties under an agreement dated 27.12.2020 entitled as “Membership Agreement” [“the Agreement”].

¶9

The Agreement is in respect of provision of co-working spaces by the petitioner to the respondent. It contains a “Governing Law and Dispute Resolution” clause which provides for resolution of disputes by arbitration. It is provided that the arbitration will be held at New Delhi only.

¶10

The case of the petitioner is that the respondent failed to make payment of its dues under the Agreement, as a result of which there are

¶11

Page 1 of 4

¶12

ARB.P. 68/2023

¶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 07/05/2024 at 14:23:33

¶14

outstanding dues of ₹3,43,727/- from the respondent to the petitioner.

¶15

The petitioner, through counsel, invoked the arbitration clause by a legal notice dated 26.09.2022. Mr. Diptiman Acharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the said notice failed to elicit a response. 5. In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court for appointment of an arbitrator.

¶16

Notice was issued on 25.01.2023. It was recorded in the order dated 09.05.2023 that the respondent has been duly served. The respondent remains unrepresented today. Although, appearances on behalf of the respondent are recorded in the orders dated 31.08.2023, 04.09.2023 and 21.09.2023; no vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The appearances recorded on 31.08.2023 and 21.09.2023 also indicate that memo of appearance was given on behalf of the counsel for Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Delhi Development Authority, which do not have any role in the present matter and their appearances seem to be erroneously recorded. As the respondent has not appeared despite service, there is no impediment to proceed with adjudication of the petition.

¶17

In the interregnum, the petitioner was directed to place original documents on record. Mr. Acharyya states that these directions were passed in view of the fact that the Agreement was unstamped and that proceedings for stamping of the Agreement were required to be taken in terms of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in NN Global Mercantile v Indo Unique Flame [(2023) 7 SCC 1], dated 25.04.2023, and the decision of this Court in Splendor Landbase Ltd. vs. Aparna Ashram Society & Anr dated 22.08.2023 in ARB.P. 366/2021. Since

Page 2 of 4

ARB.P. 68/2023

then, a Seven Judge Bench of the Supreme Court [by judgment dated 13.12.2023 in Curative Petition (C) No. 44/2023 and connected matters ( In Re: Interplay Between the Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 ) has overruled the judgment in NN Global Mercantile (supra) and held that objections with regard to the improper stamping of an agreement are outside the ambit of consideration at the stage of appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act.

¶22

Having regard to the above position, it appears that existence of the Agreement and invocation of the arbitration clause are not disputed by the respondent. The respondent has not appeared to contest the relief sought.

¶23

The petition is, therefore, allowed and disputes between the parties are referred to arbitration under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Shershah Road, New Delhi [“DIAC”]. DIAC is requested to nominate an arbitrator from its panel. The proceedings will be governed by the Rules of DIAC, including as to remuneration of the learned Arbitrator.

¶24

The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration under Section 12 of the Act, prior to entering upon the reference.

¶25

If the respondent has counter claims, those may also be placed before the learned arbitrator in accordance with law.

¶26

As the respondent has not entered appearance in these proceedings, notice of the arbitration proceedings will be served upon the respondent in accordance with the DIAC Rules. It is also made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the rights and contentions of the parties on merits,

Page 3 of 4

ARB.P. 68/2023

which are reserved for adjudication by the learned Arbitrator.

¶31

The petition is disposed of with these directions.

¶32

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶33

JANUARY 9, 2024 SS/

¶34

Page 4 of 4

¶35

ARB.P. 68/2023

¶36

This is a digitally signed order.

¶37

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 07/05/2024 at 14:23:33

Guerrilla Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Navisha Soft Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guerrilla Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Navisha Soft Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dex Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs Egypt Air

Thomas and Company Private Limited Vs Thapar Builders Pvt. Ltd.

Emerald Industries Vs Tata Aldesa Jv

Casa 2 Stays Pvt. Ltd. Vs Think and Learn Pvt. Ltd.

Transnational Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Khanij Impex & Ors.

Ghv Advanced Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Medeor Hospital Limited