Allowed

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. M/S Link Enterprises

Delhi HC21 Oct 2024FAO (COMM)/94/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench set aside the trial court order rejecting the Section 8 arbitration application. Relying on parties' consent, it appointed an independent arbitrator and directed proceedings under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh appointed as sole arbitrator; proceedings to be held under DIAC.

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs M/S Link Enterprises — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO (COMM) 94/2024, CM APPL. 30182/2024-Stay

¶4

BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. .....Appellant

¶5

Through: Mr. Pallav Kumar, Mr. Dibya Nishant, Ms. Farheen Pehwale and Mr. Khushbu Dwivedi, Advs

¶6

versus

¶7

M/S LINK ENTERPRISES .....Respondent Through: Advocate through VC (appearance not given)

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

¶10

O R D E R % 21.10.2024

¶11

The present appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 23.04.2023 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court), South District (learned Trial Court) in CS (COMM) No.211/2023. Vide the impugned order, the learned Trial Court has rejected the application preferred by the appellant under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 whereby it had sought that the plaint be returned and the matter be referred to arbitration in view of the agreement dated 08.12.2014, which contains an arbitration clause.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that despite there being no denial by the respondent/plaintiff that the parties were bound by the

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 02/07/2025 at 23:52:15

¶15

arbitration clause contained in the agreement dated 08.12.2014, the learned Trial Court has rejected the application only on the premise that under the said agreement, the parties had agreed that the General Manager of the appellant would be competent to appoint the Arbitrator, which clause was not in consonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. Vs. HSCC (India) Ltd. 2019 LawSuit (SC) 1903 . He submits that the appellant has no objection if instead of the appellant’s General Manager appointing an Arbitrator, this Court was to appoint an independent Arbitrator and direct that the arbitration proceedings be held under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff has no objection to the aforesaid suggestion and therefore joins the learned counsel for the appellant in praying that the impugned order be set aside by appointing an independent Arbitrator and directing that the arbitration proceedings in respect of the claims arising out of the agreement dated 08.12.2014 be determined through arbitration proceedings, be held under the DIAC. 4. In the light of this stand taken by the parties, the impugned order is set aside and the appellant’s application under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is allowed. Further, as agreed between the parties instead of permitting the appellant to appoint an Arbitrator, we appoint Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, Advocate (9811013515) as the sole Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties arising out of claims in the context of agreement dated 08.12.2014. The arbitration will be held under the aegis of the DIAC and therefore, the fees of the said Arbitrator will be governed by the rules of the DIAC.

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 02/07/2025 at 23:52:15

¶19

It is however made clear that since this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties, it will be open for the parties to raise their respective claims/counter claims before the learned Arbitrator, which will be decided in accordance with law. Needless to state, before entering upon reference, the learned Arbitrator will comply with Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶20

While disposing of the appeal alongwith the pending application in the aforesaid terms, we direct that the original documents, if any, filed by both sides be returned to them by the learned Trial Court on their taking appropriate steps in accordance with law.

¶21

REKHA PALLI, J

¶22

SAURABH BANERJEE, J

¶23

OCTOBER 21, 2024/Ab

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 02/07/2025 at 23:52:15

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. M/S Link Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. M/S Link Enterprises

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

M/S L a Collection Vs M/S Vishal Textile

M/S Delhi Auto and General Finance Limited & Anr. Vs M/S Poysha Oxygen Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Bajaj Finance Ltd. Vs Davnider Kumar Sharma and Others

Aanchal Dawar Vs Mohit Gautam

Harneet Singh Vs Devpriya Singh

Rajiv Kumar Vs Jawahar Lal Vohra