Partly allowed

Anil Singhal S/O Shri Om Prakash Singhal v. Vishal Bahl S/O Shri Nardeep Bahl

Rajasthan HC26 May 2023CMAP/9/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court recalled an order dismissing an application for appointment of an arbitrator due to non-payment of fees. It directed that the matter be remitted to the arbitrator once both parties pay their respective shares of the fees as required by the Act. Fee payment responsibility was shared between both sides of the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 12/11/2021 recalled. Matter remitted to Arbitrator for further proceedings pending payment of fees.

Anil Singhal S/O Shri Om Prakash Singhal Vs Vishal Bahl S/O… — Arbitration | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/012206]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 9/2022

¶4

Anil Singhal S/o Shri Om Prakash Singhal, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Plot No. 7/59, Sector No. 7, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. In The Capacity Of Partner Of M/s Eduwave Associates.

¶5

Akul Singhal S/o Shri Anil Singhal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Plot No. 7/59, Sector No. 7, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. In The Capacity Of Partner Of M/s Eduwave Associates.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Vishal Bahl S/o Shri Nardeep Bahl, R/o 602, Ganpati Paradise, Central Spine, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur-302009, In The Capacity Of Partner Of M/s Eduwave Associates.

¶9

Rekha Bahl W/o Shri Vishal Bahl, R/o 602, Ganpati Paradise, Central Spine, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur-302009, In The Capacity Of Partner Of M/s Eduwave Associates.

¶10

Manmohan Singhal Huf, Through Its Karta Manmohan Singhal, R/o 3/53, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur-302039.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Susshil Daga with Mr.Chitrash Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr.Akash Gupta, for respondent No.3 Mr.Pallav Jhalani for Mr.Anshuman Saxena, for respondent No.1 & 2

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order

¶14

26/05/2023

¶15

The present miscellaneous application has been filed by the applicants-petitioners for recalling/modification of the order dated 12^th November, 2021, passed by the Coordinate Bench of the Court in SB Civil Arbitration Application No.79/2019.

¶16

This Court finds that the Coordinate Bench of this Court, on 11^th August, 2020, disposed of the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act

[2023/RJJP/012206]

[CMAP-9/2022]

(2 of 3)

of 1996”) , filed by the applicants-petitioners, for appointment of an Arbitrator by appointing Mr.Suresh Pareek, Senior Advocate to act an an Arbitrator and his fee was to be paid in accordance with the fourth schedule of the Act of 1996.

¶21

This Court finds that a communication was received from Mr.Suresh Pareek, Senior Advocate relating to payment of his fee and as such, the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 27^th August, 2021, directed the counsel to make necessary payment of due fees to the Arbitrator.

¶22

The Coordinate Bench of this Court, again on 9^th November, 2021, directed learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners to seek instructions as whether the petitioners undertake to pay the entire fees of the Arbitrator, as per the requirement of the provisions of the Act.

¶23

The case was listed on 12^th November, 2021 and on account of a letter, received from the Arbitrator, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, dismissed the arbitration application, as both the counsel for the parties, admitted that they had not paid the fees, due to the Arbitrator.

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners submitted that in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 05^th May, 2023 in the present miscellaneous application, the applicants-petitioners have paid Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac only) as a fee against their part to the Arbitrator Mr.Suresh Pareek, Senior Advocate.

¶25

Learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners further submitted that to the best of his knowledge, the respondents have not paid their fee so far.

[2023/RJJP/012206]

[CMAP-9/2022]

(3 of 3)

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners undertake to pay the fee, which is outstanding as per the Act of 1996, however, the arbitration proceedings may be revived and suitable directions may be given by this Court.

¶30

Learned counsel – Mr.Akash Gupta, appearing for the respondent No.3, submitted that at one point of time, the applicants-petitioners had undertaken to pay the entire fees on behalf of both the parties and as such, if the entire fees is paid by the applicants, the respondent No.3 would have no objection to revive the proceedings.

¶31

This Court finds that once the Arbitrator has been appointed with the consent of both the parties, it is the responsibility of both the parties to share the fees for the purpose of paying the complete fees to the Arbitrator as per the provisions of the Act of 1996.

¶32

This Court finds that the order dated 12^th November, 2021 needs to be recalled.

¶33

This Court also makes it clear that if any fees is still outstanding against the petitioners, the same is required to be paid to the Sole Arbitrator and further, the respondents are also liable to pay their share of fee, as per the provisions of the Act of 1996.

¶34

Accordingly, the order dated 12^th November, 2021 is recalled and the matter is remitted back to the Arbitrator for conducting further proceedings in accordance with law.

¶35

Office is directed to send the file back to the Arbitrator.

¶36

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶37

Preeti Asopa /25

Anil Singhal S/O Shri Om Prakash Singhal v. Vishal Bahl S/O Shri Nardeep Bahl

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Singhal S/O Shri Om Prakash Singhal v. Vishal Bahl S/O Shri Nardeep Bahl

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Prl Projects and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan through Chief Engineer (Nh) Public Works Department (P.W.D. )

M/S Prl Projects and Infrastruture Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan through Chief Engineer, (Nh)

Jaipur Centre Developers Private Limited Vs M/S Pace Tel Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Administrator Vs Dau Dayal Gupta Son of Shri Babu Lal Gupta

Jaipur Centre Devlopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Siddhi Vinayak Colonizers

Taranjeet Singh Sahni S/O Pritpal Singh Sahni Vs Vijay Kumar Bhalodia S/O Laxman Bhai