Allowed

Radico Khaitan Limited v. Nargesh Kumar

Delhi HC6 Sept 2024ARB.P./950/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court exercised its powers under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to refer a dispute arising from invoices dated with undisputed dues of approximately Rs 7 lakhs to arbitration. The court acted under principles established by the Supreme Court regarding unilateral appointment of arbitrators when a clause envisages such appointment by the petitioner alone.

What did the court decide?

The dispute was referred to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) for appointment of an arbitrator to arbitrate the disputes arising from unpaid invoices.

Radico Khaitan Limited Vs Nargesh Kumar — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 950/2024

¶4

RADICO KHAITAN LIMITED .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Kamal Garg, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

NARGESH KUMAR .....Respondent

¶8

Through:

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

¶10

JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 06.09.2024

¶11

1. This is a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996¹ , seeking reference of the disputes between the parties to arbitration.

¶12

2. Service has been effected on the respondent. None has appeared for the respondent when the matter is called out. No reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent either.

¶13

3. The petitioner invokes the arbitration clause contained in the invoices raised by the petitioner on the respondent against which payments, according to the petitioner remain due from the respondent. These invoices envisage resolution of disputes by arbitration, fixing the seat of arbitration as Delhi.

¶14

4. Though the arbitration agreement envisages the appointment of

¶15

1 “the 1996 Act”, hereinafter Signature Not Ver ified Digitally Signed By:AJITARB. P. 950/2024 KUMAR Signing Da te:0 9.09.2024 13:41:16

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 09.0 9.2024 13:40:27

¶19

an arbitrator by the petitioner, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bharat Broadband Network Ltd v United Telecoms Ltd² , Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v HSCC (India) Ltd³ and Haryana Space Application Centre (HARSAC) v Pan India Consultants Pvt Ltd⁴ , such an arbitration clause cannot be worked.

¶20

5. The petitioner addressed a notice to the respondent under Section 21 of the 1996 Act on 23 February 2024, seeking resolution of disputes by arbitration. The respondent has not replied. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act.

¶21

6. The claim of the petitioner against the respondent is said to be in the region of ₹ 7 lakhs.

¶22

7. Accordingly, this dispute is referred to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre⁵ to appoint a suitable Arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes.

¶23

8. The arbitration shall take place under the aegis of the DIAC and would abide by its rules and regulations.

¶24

9. The learned arbitrator shall be entitled to charge fees as per the schedule of fees maintained by the DIAC.

¶25

2(2019) 5 SCC 755

¶26

3(2020) 20 SCC 760

¶27

4(2021) 3 SCC 103

¶28

5 “the DIAC”, hereinafter

¶29

Signature Not Ver ified

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed By:AJITARB. P. 950/2024 KUMAR Signing Da te:0 9.09.2024 13:41:16

¶32

Page 2 of 3 Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 09.0 9.2024 13:40:27

¶33

10. 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.

¶34

11. The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶35

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶36

SEPTEMBER 6, 2024 yg

¶37

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶38

Signature Not Ver ified

¶39

Signature Not Verified