Delhi High Court
National Research Development ... vs M/S. Chrome International And ... on 9 July, 1996
Author: A Srivastava
Bench: A Srivastava
JUDGMENT
A.K. Srivastava, J.
1. This petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was moved by the National Research Development Corporation of India against M/s. Chrome International, Shyam Lal Goenka, Mangal Lal Kamdoi, Shanker Lal Kamdoi and Bhagwan Dass Kamdoi. The prayer is that the opposite parties be directed to file the arbitration agreement and reference of disputes arising between the plaintiff and the opposite parties be referred to an arbitrator for hearing of the disputes and for making award.
2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff says that the plaintiff and the opposite parties had entered into an agreement dated 3.2.1976 and in that very agreement there was an arbitration clause to the effect that in case any dispute or difference arises between the parties with respect to their rights or liabilities or in regard to any other matter under the agreement, the same shall be referred to arbitration of the Chairman, National Research Development Corporation of India, and if he is unable or unwilling to act to the sole arbitration of some other person appointed by him.
3. The disputes according to the petitioner are enumerated in para 13 of the petition which are as follows :
"(i) Whether the respondents are liable to file the royalty returns, from the date of commencement of production and render true accounts ?
(ii) What are the arrears of royalty amount which the respondents are liable to pay to the petitioner ?
(iii) What is the amount towards interest which the respondents are liable to pay to the petitioner ?
4. Summons were issued to the defendants. Defendants 1 and 2 were served. Defendant No. 1 appeared and the case proceeded ex parte against defendant No. 2 vide order dated 21.2.1992. On 22.5.1992 plaintiff's counsel made a statement that summons and notices be not issued to the defendants 3, 4 and 5 as he will given them up. The plaintiff moved a formal application IA 4894/93 to give up defendants 3 to 5 and prayed that their names be struck off from the array of the parties. That application was allowed vide order dated 17.5.1993. On that very date fresh summons and notices were issued to defendant No. 1 with a clear notice that in case he failed to appear in court on 30.8.1993 the matter shall proceed ex parte against him. Defendant No. 1 was served but in spite of service no one appeared and therefore vide order dated 16.3.1995 the case was ordered to be proceeded ex parte against him as well. In view of above the case now proceeds ex parte against both the defendants 1 and 2.
5. The plaintiff has filed an affidavit to substantiate its case. Original agreement has also been filed. On perusal of the contents of the affidavit which has been filed to substantiate the plaintiff's case. I am of the view that the plaintiff has been able to prove its case. There is an agreement between the parties which contains the arbitration clause and therefore when the alleged disputes are said to have arisen between the parties the matter has to be referred to the arbitrator. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed.
6. The arbitration clause incorporated in Para 11 of the agreement says that the disputes shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Chairman, National Research, Development Corporation of India. The learned counsel for the plaintiff says that the post of Chairman, National Research, Development Corporation of India is laying vacant and therefore be there is no point in referring the disputes to him. He requests that a lawyers may be appointed as arbitrator. Considering these submissions, a person other than the Chairman, National Research, Development Corporation of India may be appointed as an arbitrator and the disputes may be referred to him. Shri S. K. Kohli, Advocate, who is present in the Court is willing to be appointed as arbitrator in the matter. It is reported that he retired as Registrar of the Indian Institute of Public Administration and after retirement he stirring he started practicing as an Advocate. As per the averments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff, this dispute involves a sum of Rupees seven to eight lacs in the nature of royalty. Considering the valuation Shri S. K. Kohli, Advocate, may be appointed as an arbirator. I accordingly, appoint him as an arbitrator and refer the flowing disputes to him :
"(i) Whether the respondents are liable to file the royalty returns, from the date of commencement of production and render true accounts ?
(ii) What are the arrears of royalty amount which the respondents are liable to pay to the petitioner ?
(iii) What is the amount towards interest which the respondent are liable to pay to the petitioner ?"
7. His consolidated fees for arbitration would be Rs. 75,000/- at the first instance plus the office expenses which shall be paid by the plaintiff. The award be filed within three months.
The petition is disposed of with ex parte costs.
