Miss Lucy
← All judgments

VARDAAN SYNTHETICS Vs PAWAN TRADERS

Delhi High Court13 November 2024

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where an arbitration clause is prima facie evident from the face of the contract documents, the court shall appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, without impediment, even if one party has not responded to the invocation letter. A respondent to an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 retains the right to raise preliminary objections regarding arbitrability and jurisdiction before the appointed arbitrator, and such objections shall be decided by the arbitrator in accordance with law.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

$~9*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIDate of Decision: 13.11.2024
%+
ARB.P. 901/2024VARDAAN SYNTHETICSThrough:versusPAWAN TRADERSThrough:
.....PetitionerMr. Shaurya Dhoundiyal, Ms.Bhavana Chandak, Ms. Disha Nanda,Advs......RespondentMr. Braj Kishore Roy, Mr. Ajay GaurAdvs.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTASACHIN DATTA, J. (Oral)1.
The present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 seeks constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 2.

The disputes between the parties have arisen in the context of alleged

non-payment of invoices/bills raised by the petitioner in course of supplying cloth to the respondent on a credit basis. 3.

The invoices raised by the petitioner upon the respondent contain an

arbitration clause in the following terms:“4)All disputes are to be decided by the Delhi Hindustan Mercantile Association (Regd.) Delhi, as per its ‘Rules & regulations as well as under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act”

4.

Disputes having arisen between the parties, an invocation letter dated

25.10.2023 was issued by the petitioner to the respondent. However, the

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:21.11.2024 12:46:32

ARB.P. 901/2024

Page 1 of 3

same was not responded to by the respondent. 5.

In the above circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court,

seeking the appointment of a Sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 6.

Since the existence of the arbitration clause is prima facie evident from

a perusal of the invoices/bills raised, there is no impediment to appointing an independent Sole Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes between the parties, as prayed for, and as mandated in terms of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd (2020) 20 SCC 760, TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd, (2017) 8 SCC 377, Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 547, SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning 2024 SCC OnLine 1754 and Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 & the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, In re, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1666. 7.

Respective counsel for the parties jointly request that an independent

Sole Arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. 8.

Accordingly, as jointly prayed Ms. Anisha Soni, Advocate (Mob. No.:

+91 9999817311) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 9.

The respondent shall be at liberty to raise preliminary objections as

regards arbitrability/jurisdiction, if any, which shall be decided by the arbitrator, in accordance with law. 10.

The learned Sole Arbitrator may proceed with the arbitration

proceedings subject to furnishing to the parties requisite disclosure as required under Section 12 of the A&C Act. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:21.11.2024 12:46:32

ARB.P. 901/2024

Page 2 of 3

11.

The learned Sole Arbitrator shall be entitled to fee in accordance with

the IVth Schedule of the A&C Act; or as may otherwise be agreed to between the parties and the learned Sole Arbitrator. 12.

Parties shall share the arbitrator’s fee and arbitral cost, equally.

Schedule of the A&C Act; or as may otherwise be agreed to between the parties and the learned Sole Arbitrator. 13.

All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the claims/counter

claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Sole Arbitrator on their merits, in accordance with law. 14.

Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an

expression of opinion of this court on the merits of the case. 15.

The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

SACHIN DATTA, J NOVEMBER 13, 2024/uk

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:21.11.2024 12:46:32

ARB.P. 901/2024

Page 3 of 3

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free