Allowed

Sumana Verma v. Arti Kapur & Anr.

Delhi HC20 May 2025W.P.(C)/16203/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Sole Arbitrator's order striking off the petitioner's defence for inability to pay fees. It directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 10 lakh fees and the respondent to deposit the petitioner's share, allowing arbitration to resume.

What did the court decide?

Set aside order striking off defence; directed joint request to Sole Arbitrator to resume proceedings pending deposits.

Sumana Verma Vs Arti Kapur & Anr. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 16203/2024 and CM APPL.28783/2025

¶4

SUMANA VERMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sambit Nanda and Ms. Samaya Khanna, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

ARTI KAPUR & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Murari Tiwari, Mr. Rahul Kumar, Ms. Nimisha Gupta, Ms. Sonia Kumari and Ms. Abha Tomar, Advs.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA O R D E R % 20.05.2025

¶9

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing an order dated 26.10.2024 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in case bearing no. DIAC/5257/2022 titled as ‘Arti Kapur v. Sumana Verma & Anr.’ . The parties are directors and shareholders in M/s Gold Cause Construction Private Limited (“GCCPL”), which deals with real estate construction & development.

¶10

The disputes between the parties arose on account of the alleged refusal of the petitioner to purchase the shareholding of the respondent no.1 in the said company. This Court vide order dated 09.09.2022 in ARB.P. No. 497 of 2021 referred the disputes to arbitration before the DIAC.

¶11

It is submitted that the petitioner expressed her inability to pay the fees of the Arbitrator as per the DIAC rules. In view of the same, the learned Arbitral Tribunal passed an order striking off the defence of the petitioner solely on the ground of petitioner’s inability to pay the fees.

¶12

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 20:26:48

¶13

It is submitted by the petitioner that the same is contrary to the provisions of the Arbitration Act as well as the rules prescribed by the DIAC. It is further submitted that the same will inhibit the tribunal from effectively adjudicating the matter taking into account all relevant aspects thereby vitiating the arbitral proceedings.

¶14

It has been settled in catena of cases, that the scope of jurisdiction of this Court in respect of orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, is extremely limited¹ .

¶15

Prima facie , the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference with the order passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶16

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to deposit an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards arbitral fees and cost.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the interest of an effective and expeditious adjudication of the matter, the deficit amount shall be paid/ deposited by the respondents subject to the respondents’ right to request the learned Sole Arbitrator to take the same into account while passing final award.

¶18

In the circumstances, with consent of respective counsel, the directions in the impugned order striking off the defence of the petitioner herein is set aside, subject to the petitioner’s depositing a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards arbitral fees/cost. The deficit amount, if any, towards

¶19

1 Bhaven Constructions vs Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited and Anr., (2022) 1 SCC 75; Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. vs Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 319; Surender Kumar Singhal and Ors. vs Arun Kumar Bhalotia and Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3708

¶20

¶21

the petitioner’s share of arbitral fees shall be deposited by the respondent no. 1 herein.

¶22

The parties shall jointly request the learned Sole Arbitrator to resume and conduct the arbitral proceedings accordingly.

¶23

Needless to say, the respondents shall be entitled to urge/ request the learned Sole Arbitrator to take into account the aforesaid deposit by the respondent of the petitioner’s share of arbitral fees/ cost, while passing the final award.

¶24

The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending application/s if any also stands disposed of.

¶25

The date already fixed i.e. 17.07.2025 stands cancelled.

¶26

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶27

MAY 20, 2025/ uk

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 20:26:48

Sumana Verma v. Arti Kapur & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumana Verma v. Arti Kapur & Anr.

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

Jco Gas Pipe Limited Vs Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato Ward 91 Zone 8 Delhi

Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Yadav and Anr. Vs Central Board of Film Certification and Ors.

Gor Sharian Vs the Commissioner of Customs

Sri Ganpati Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Cgst, Delhi West

Union of India & Ors. Vs Abhay Raj Pal

NTPC Retired Employees Welfare Association and Ors. Vs NTPC Ltd. and Ors.

Ge Steam Power Inc( Earlier Known as M/S Alstom Power Inc) Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

M/S Ge Power Gmbh ( Earlier Known as M/S Ge Power Ag and Ealier to That as Alstom Power Ag) Vs Assistent Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Int Tax 1(3) (1) and Anr.

Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Yadav and Anr. Vs Central Board of Film Certification and Ors.

Niji Sapra Vs Union of India and Anr.

National Agriculture and Consumer Multi State Cooperative of India Limited Vs Union of India & Anr.

M/S Frisco Global Private Limited Vs Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement and Anr.

Sandeep Duggal Vs Investor Education and Protection Fund Authority & Ors.

Javed Khan Zada Vs Union of India & Ors.