Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Bureau of India Vs Terrace… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Bureau of India Vs Terrace… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appointment of Ms. Raavi Birbal, Advocate as Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties, with arbitration under the aegis of the DIAC and fees per the DIAC Schedule of Fees; limitation question and all rights and contentions relating to claims/counter-claims kept open for the Arbitrator; petition disposed of along with pending applications.

Issue for consideration

Whether an Arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate the disputes between the Petitioner and the Respondent arising under tender bearing No. 29/2015 for supply of generic medicines. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court found the dispute in the present case more or less similar to ARB.P. 436/2023 and was therefore inclined to appoint the same Arbitrator as in that analogous petition.

Ratio / Principle

The Court appointed Ms. Raavi Birbal, Advocate (Mob. No. 9818024661) as the Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.

Key takeaways

The arbitration shall take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and abide by its rules and regulations.ratio¶¶20
The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the Schedule of Fees maintained by the DIAC.ratio¶¶20
The Court expressly made no observation on whether the claim is barred by limitation, leaving that question open for the Arbitrator to take a decision.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ARB.P. 1927/2024 (High Court of Delhi, Subramonium Prasad J., order dated 03.03.2025): Section 11(5) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 petition by Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Bureau of India against Terrace Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for disputes under tender bearing No. 29/2015 (supply of generic medicines), arising from alleged supply of defective medicines and consequent recoveries/debit note — dated 19.12.2019 per the Petitioner but 13.08.2018 per the Respondent. Taking 13.08.2018 as terminus quo and excluding 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 as held by the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020 (Re: Congnizance for Extension of Limitation), the Petitioner claimed invocation within the three-year period under Article 137. The Court held the case would not come within the dead/stale claim definitions in Arif Azim Co. Ltd. vs. Micromax Informatics FZE (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3212) and SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Krish Spinning (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754), but expressly made no observation on limitation, leaving it open for the Arbitrator. As the dispute was more or less similar to ARB.P. 436/2023, the Court appointed Ms. Raavi Birbal, Advocate as Arbitrator; arbitration under the aegis of DIAC with fees per the DIAC Schedule of Fees; disclosure under Section 12(2) of the 1996 Act to be filed within a week of entering on reference; all rights and contentions on claims/counter-claims kept open; petition stood disposed of along with pending applications.

$~75

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- ARB.P. 1927/2024, I.A. 46978/2024

PHARMACEUTICALS AND MEDICAL DEVICES BUREAU OF

INDIA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr, Manjit Kumar Pathak, Advocate.

versus

TERRACE PHARMACEUTICALS PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tarun Kumar Mishra, Advocate.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

O R D E R % 03.03.2025

The present petition has been filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Petitioner seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes which have arisen between the Petitioner and the Respondent under a tender bearing No.29/2015 invited by the Petitioner for supply of generic medicines.

It is stated that the Respondent herein was given the aforesaid tender. It is stated that certain defective medicines were supplied by the Respondent. It is stated that recoveries were initiated by the Petitioner to recover the said medicines and according to the Petitioner, the debit note was issued to the Respondent on 19.12.2019, whereas according to the Respondent the same was issued on 13.08.2018.

Taking 13.08.2018 as terminus quo for calculating the limitation and excluding the period between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for computing the

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 10/03/2025 at 12:19:34

limitation as held by the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020 titled as Re: Congnizance for Extension of Limitation, the Petitioner has invoked the arbitration within the period of three years as contemplated under Article 137 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The present case would not come within the definition of dead/stale claim as defined by the Apex Court in Arif Azim Co. Ltd. vs. Micromax Informatics FZE, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3212 and SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Krish Spinning, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754. This Court is not making any observations as to whether the claim is barred by limitation, leaving it open for the Ld. Arbitrator to take a decision. It is stated that the Respondent has its own counter-claim.

In an analogous tender, this Court in an arbitration petition being ARB.P. 436/2023 has appointed Ms. Raavi Birbal, Advocate, as the Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.

In view of the fact that the dispute in the present case is more or less similar to ARB.P. 436/2023, this Court is inclined to appoint Ms. Raavi Birbal, Advocate (Mob. No.9818024661) as the Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.

The arbitration would take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and would abide by its rules and regulations. The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the Schedule of Fees maintained by the DIAC.

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 reference. 9. All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the

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 10/03/2025 at 12:19:34

claims/counter-claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Arbitrator on their merits, in accordance with law.

Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the contentions of the parties. 11. The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms, along with pending application(s), if any.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

MARCH 03, 2025 S. Zakir

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 10/03/2025 at 12:19:34