Delhi High Court
Mrs Pushpa Bagla vs Jagdish P.D. Verma And Anr. on 6 February, 2006
Author: B D Ahmed
Bench: B D Ahmed
JUDGMENT
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. The Arbitration Petition 362/2005 is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') for appointment of an Arbitrator. IA No. 10333/2005 is an application filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the said Act for interim measures. IA No. 1302/2006 is an application filed on behalf of the respondents for cancellation of the status quo order dated 19.12.2005 passed by this court on the petitioner's said application under Section 9 of the said Act.
2. The counsel for the parties have been heard. It appears that the parties entered into three separate Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) which are at pages 15, 23 and 30 of the paper book. All the three MoUs are of the same date, i.e., 15.10.2005. Insofar as the first MoU, which is at page 15 of the paper book is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents has stated that he has no objection to the carrying out of the transaction mentioned therein and executing the sale deed in respect thereof in favor of the petitioner. As such, there is no dispute with regard to this MoU and, therefore, there is no question of reference to an Arbitrator.
3. Insofar as the MoU which is at page 15 of the paper Book is concerned, the same has to be excluded from the purview of the present proceedings. The counsel for the parties are agreed that the transaction under the first MoU which finds place at page 15 of the paper book shall be completed within 15 days.
4. As regards the second and third MoUs, there are disputes between the parties and the same are, therefore, referable to arbitration in terms of clause 15 contained in the said MoUs. There is also a dispute raised by the respondents that inasmuch as the signing amounts to the extent of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs.2 lakhs in the second and third MoUs have not been paid, there exist no MoU in law and, therefore, there is no question of referring the dispute to arbitration. Mr Sethi, the learned senior counsel, who appears for the petitioner, states that the Arbitrator would be entitled in law to decide on its own jurisdiction whether the MoUs exist or not. In any event, he refutes the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents.
5. In these circumstances, it is agreed that both the parties shall appear before an Arbitrator for adjudication of all their disputes, including the dispute raised by the respondents before this court with regard to the issuance of the notice dated 26.11.2005, which is stated to have been sent through courier to the respondents. The learned counsel for the parties agree that Mr Justice R.C. Chopra (Retd), a former Judge of this court be appointed as an Arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties. They have also agreed that they shall appear before the learned Arbitrator on 07.11.2006 itself and it will be open to him to deal with the matter in its entirety, including the disposal of any application that may be made by the petitioner under Section 17 of the said Act.
6. Accordingly, the disputes qua the second and third MoUs are referred to the Arbitrator [Mr Justice R.C. Chopra (retd)] for arbitration by him. The fees of the Arbitrator shall be fixed by the Arbitrator himself. Insofar as the interim orders passed in these proceedings are concerned, the same stand vacated. The next date in the matter stands cancelled. The petition as well as the applications stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be given dusty under the signatures of the Court Master.
