Allowed

Keystone Solutions v. K7 Group Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Delhi HC11 Sept 2024ARB.P./752/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court, in an arbitration petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, appointed Ms. Raji Gururaj as the arbitrator for a commercial dispute between the petitioner and the respondent arising from a Work Order dated October 1, 2022. The court noted the existence of an arbitration clause and the absence of substantial opposition from the respondents.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Ms. Raji Gururaj, Advocate, as the arbitrator to resolve disputes between the parties.

Keystone Solutions Vs K7 Group Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~7

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 752/2024

¶4

KEYSTONE SOLUTIONS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Chetan Roy, Mr. Amandeep Singh, Mr. Pawan Kant Singh and Ms. Ariba Kadri, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

K7 GROUP HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. & ORS.

¶7

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Mohnish Nirwan, Ms. Mansi Sharma, Mr. Yash Tewari, Advs.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

ORDER (ORAL)

11.09.2024

1. Mr. Mohnish Nirwan appears and seeks time to file reply.

¶14

2. Notice in this petition was issued as far back as on 27 May 2024.

¶15

3. The Supreme Court has held, in its recent decision in SBI General Insurance Co Ltd v Krish Spinning¹ that, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(5) or 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996² , the Court has only to examine whether there exists an arbitration agreement between the parties and whether the Section 11 petition has been filed within three years of the notice

¶16

1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754

¶17

2 “the 1996 Act”, hereinafter Signature Not Ver ified

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

ARB.P. 752/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:1 7.09.2024 18:55:14

¶20

Page 1 of 4 Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 17.0 9.2024 18:54:18

¶21

under Section 21 of the 1996 Act.

¶22

4. Mr. Chetan Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Clause 12 of a Work Order dated 1 October 2022, executed between the respondents and the petitioner. The work order contains the following clause envisaging resolution of dispute by arbitration:

¶23

“12. Arbitration

¶24

Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this contract, including any question regarding its existence, validity of termination, shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration under the Arbitration rules, which rules are deemed to be incorporated by reference into this clause incorporated by reference into this clause.”

¶25

5. Clause 13 of the work order also confers jurisdiction on courts in Delhi in all matters relating to the contract.

¶26

6. The word “Arbitration Rules”, employed in Clause 12, submits Mr. Roy, is an inelegant reference to the provisions of the 1996 Act. He submits that, as the work order was executed by people who are legally not trained, the expression “arbitral rules” actually intends to refer to the applicable statutory provisions governing arbitration.

¶27

7. The respondents issued a legal notice to the petitioner on 20 February 2024, raising certain demands. The petitioner, by way of response dated 29 February 2024, disputed the demands and sought reference of the dispute to arbitration.

¶28

8. The petitioner also suggested the name of two advocates, from

¶29

Signature Not Ver ified

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

ARB.P. 752/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:1 7.09.2024 18:55:14

¶32

Page 2 of 4 Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 17.0 9.2024 18:54:18

¶33

whom the respondents were called upon to select one as the arbitrator.

¶34

9. The respondents not having communicated any further, the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act.

¶35

10. As already noted, no reply has been filed to this petition.

¶36

11. Learned Counsel for the respondents is also not able to provide any substantial opposition to this petition.

¶37

12. The claim of the respondents against the petitioner is in the region of Rs. 3.5 crores.

¶38

13. The total of claim of the respondents against the petitioner and the counter claim of the petitioner against the respondents is in the region of ₹ 3.5 cores.

¶39

14. Accordingly, this Court appoints Ms. Raji Gururaj, Advocate (Tel. 9704847263) as the arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes between the parties.

¶40

15. The arbitrator shall be entitled to charge fees as per the Fourth Schedule to the 1996 Act.

¶41

16. The learned arbitrator is also requested to file the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the 1996 Act within a week of entering on the reference.

¶42

Signature Not Ver ified

¶43

Signature Not Verified

¶44

ARB.P. 752/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:1 7.09.2024 18:55:14

¶45

Page 3 of 4

¶46

Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 17.0 9.2024 18:54:18

¶47

17. All questions of fact and law are left open to be urged before the learned arbitrator.