Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt. ... vs Sanguine Technical Publishers & ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 957 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                 Judgment Pronounced on: February 26, 2013

+                             Arb.P.No.467/2012

        DORLING KINDERSLEY (INDIA) PVT LTD          ..... Petitioner
                     Through  Mr.Sanjay S.Chhabra, Adv.

                              versus

        SANGUINE TECHNICAL PUBLISHERS & ORS ..... Respondents
                     Through Ms.Nidhi Jain, Adv. for R-1, 2 & 3.
                             Mr.Nikhil Rohatgi, Adv. for R-4.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. The abovementioned petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising between the petitioner and the respondents in terms of the Agreement dated 14th December, 2009.

2. The petition is filed against the four respondents, namely, Sanguine Technical Publishers, M.R.Kamalakar Pandit, Lal M.Prasad and Dr.D.Ganesh Rao. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 is a partnership firm who is engaged in the business of publishing textbooks relating to science and engineering. Respondents No.2 to 4 are its partners and are responsible for the day-to-day activities of respondent No.1. In the petition, it is also stated that respondent No.4 is also working as Head of Department, Telecom Engineering, M.S.R. Institute of Technology, Bangalore and is an author/co-author of some of the educational books/titles published by respondent No.1.

3. Respondent No.4 has filed the reply to the petition and is agreeable for appointment of an Arbitrator. Learned counsel appearing on his behalf has no objection for allowing the present petition. The reply is supported by the affidavit of respondent No.4. However, in the affidavit, it is not mentioned about his full identity, though in the petition it is specifically mentioned that he is one of the partners of respondent No.1.

4. Separate reply has also been filed by respondents No.1 to 3.

5. During the course of arguments, Ms.Nidhi Jain, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 has raised two objections, namely, (i) there is no existing agreement between the parties, and (ii) this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

6. As far as the first objection is concerned, the original agreement was shown to the learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 who has admitted the existence of the agreement between the parties. The second objection of territorial jurisdiction is also not seriously contested by her.

7. After some arguments, both the parties are agreeable if the prayer made in the present petition is allowed. With the consent of the parties, Mr.Harish Malhotra, Senior Advocate (Chamber No.489, Lawyers Chamber Block-II, Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003, Mob.No.9810016214) is appointed as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate all the disputes and differences between the parties as mentioned in this petition, including their claims and counter-claims, arising out of the Agreement dated 14th December, 2009. The Arbitrator shall conduct the proceedings under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and shall give prior notice before commencing the proceedings. Total fee of the learned Arbitrator shall be payable to the tune of `1 lac each which shall be

paid by both set of parties, i.e. the petitioner at the one hand and the respondents on the other hand. The petition is accordingly disposed of.

8. Copies of this order be given dasti to the learned counsels for the parties. A copy of the order be also communicated to the learned sole Arbitrator.

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE FEBRUARY 26, 2013/ka