Angul Energy Limited v. Vistrat Real Estate Private Limited & Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
CS(COMM) 634/2024, Delhi High Court, 10.02.2025, Anish Dayal, J. — Angul Energy Ltd. v. Vistrat Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.: substitution of plaintiff by Tata Steel Ltd. under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC following CIRP resolution plan of erstwhile Bhushan Energy Ltd.; recovery suit (~Rs. 20 crores plus interest) regarding Memorandum of Security Deposit referred to arbitration under Section 89 CPC on parties' consensus despite plaintiff's objection on scope of Lease Agreement arbitration clause and defendants' pending Section 8 A&C Act application (merits not adverted to); Justice Rajiv Shakdher (Retd.) appointed Sole Arbitrator, fees per Fourth Schedule A&C Act; plaintiff barred from objecting to arbitrability; court fee refunded; petition disposed of.
What did the court decide?
I.A. 43088/2024 allowed: Tata Steel Ltd. substituted as plaintiff in place of Angul Energy Ltd. All disputes inter se the parties referred to arbitration under Section 89 CPC on consensus; Justice Rajiv Shakdher (Retd.) appointed Sole Arbitrator with fee per the Fourth Schedule of the A&C Act; plaintiff directed not to object to arbitrability; court fee to be refunded to the plaintiff; petition disposed of with all pending applications, if any.