Rajesh Kumar v. M/S Gtl Infrastructure Limited

Delhi HC18 Mar 2025ARB.P./1798/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 11(5) Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; appointment of sole arbitrator; License Agreement dated 06.02.2009; arbitration Clause 21; Supplementary Agreements; prior civil suit for recovery; Section 8 application allowed; invocation notice dated 15.07.2024; no objection by respondent; DIAC; DIAC Rules 2018; Section 12 declaration; arbitrability left open; Chand Chopra; Jasmeet Singh; ARB.P. 1798/2024; decided 18.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 11(5) allowed; Ms. Chand Chopra, Advocate, appointed Sole Arbitrator; arbitration under DIAC aegis; fees per DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators’ Fees) Rules, 2018; Section 12 declaration before entering reference; all rights and contentions left open; parties to approach the arbitrator within two weeks. ¶¶22

Rajesh Kumar Vs M/S Gtl Infrastructure Limited — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether an arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate the disputes pending between the parties arising out of the License Agreement dated 06.02.2009 containing arbitration Clause 21.

¶¶11

Court's answer

The Court was satisfied that there are disputes pending between the parties which need to be adjudicated in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶¶21

Ratio / Principle

The petition is allowed and Ms. Chand Chopra (Advocate) is appointed as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶¶23

Key takeaways

The arbitration shall be held under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), Delhi High Court, with the arbitrator's remuneration governed by the DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators’ Fees) Rules, 2018, and a declaration in terms of Section 12 of the Act to be furnished before entering upon the reference.ratio¶¶27
All rights and contentions of the parties, including arbitrability of any claim, preliminary objections, claims/counter-claims and merits, are left open for adjudication by the learned arbitrator.ratio¶¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Jasmeet Singh, J.) allowed a petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and appointed Ms. Chand Chopra, Advocate, as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between Rajesh Kumar (petitioner) and M/S GTL Infrastructure Limited (respondent) arising out of a License Agreement dated 06.02.2009 in respect of 900 sq. ft. on the terrace of property No. D-263, Gali No. 9, Chhattarpur Pahari, New Delhi, subsequently extended by Supplementary Agreements confined to extension of tenure and increase in rent. Clause 21 of the agreements provided for reference of disputes to a sole arbitrator at New Delhi. An earlier civil suit by the petitioner for recovery of money stood referred on the respondent's application under Section 8 of the 1996 Act being allowed; the petitioner thereafter invoked the arbitration clause by legal notice dated 15.07.2024, and learned counsel for the respondent had no objection to the petition being allowed. The Court directed that the arbitration be held under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), Delhi High Court, with remuneration per the DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators’ Fees) Rules, 2018; the arbitrator to furnish a Section 12 declaration before entering the reference; all rights and contentions, including arbitrability and preliminary objections, left open; parties to approach the arbitrator within two weeks. Petition disposed of accordingly.

¶1

$~11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 1798/2024

RAJESH KUMAR

.....Petitioner

Through:

versus

M/S GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED

¶9

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Gautam Mishra, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

¶10

O R D E R % 18.03.2025

¶11

This is a petition filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( “1996 Act” ) seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes pending between the parties arising out of License Agreement dated 06.02.2009 ( “Agreement” ).

¶12

The parties entered into the said Agreement for 900 sq. ft. on the terrace of the property bearing No. H. No. D-263, Gali No. 9, Chhattarpur Pahari, New Delhi – l10074 for a period of 10 years. The said agreement was extended by Supplementary Agreements.

¶13

The agreements contained arbitration clause being clause No. 21 which reads as under:

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 26/03/2025 at 13:50:06

¶16

“21: Any dispute or claim between the parties hereto arising out of or relating to this agreement, or its implementation and/ or its side effect, or the breach, termination, due to efflux of time or otherwise, or invalidity thereof, either during its subsistence or after its termination, shall be referred to the arbitration of a sole arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of Arbitrations and Reconciliation Act 1996. The Arbitration shall be held at New Delhi.”

¶17

The Supplementary Agreements were only for the extension of the tenure and the increase in the rent.

¶18

Before filing this petition, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit seeking recovery of money wherein the respondent filed an application under Section 8 of 1996 Act which was allowed.

¶19

Since there were disputes between the parties, the petitioner invoked arbitration clause vide legal notice dated 15.07.2024.

¶20

Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent and has no objection to the petition being allowed.

¶21

I am satisfied that there are disputes pending between the parties which need to be adjudicated in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶22

For the said reasons, the petition is allowed and the following directions are issued:-

¶23

i) Ms. Chand Chopra (Advocate) (Mob. No. 9915907494) is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes

¶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 26/03/2025 at 13:50:06

¶26

between the parties.

¶27

ii) The arbitration will be held under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘DIAC’).

¶28

iii) The remuneration of the learned Arbitrator shall be in terms of DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators’ Fees) Rules, 2018.

¶29

iv) The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration in terms of Section 12 of the Act prior to entering into the reference.

¶30

v) It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the parties, including as to the arbitrability of any of the claim, any other preliminary objection, as well as claims/counter-claims and merits of the dispute of either of the parties, are left open for adjudication by the learned arbitrator.

¶31

vi) The parties shall approach the learned Arbitrator within two weeks from today.

¶32

The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶33

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶34

MARCH 18, 2025/sp

¶35

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶36

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 26/03/2025 at 13:50:06

Rajesh Kumar v. M/S Gtl Infrastructure Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar v. M/S Gtl Infrastructure Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Ashoka Enterprises Vs Union of India

Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited Vs Alok Kumar

Oyo Workspaces India Private Limited Vs Dida Brothers Company Private Limited

Prabhas Narain Misra Vs Erco Travels Private Limited & Anr.

Supraes Private Limited Vs Maharashtra Seamless Limited

M/S Balaji Surveyors Private Limited Vs M/S Feedback Infra Private Limited