Ravi Chandra Naik vs Samir Chawla & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 392 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                               Judgment Pronounced on: January 28, 2013

+                           OMP No.284/2012

       RAVI CHANDRA NAIK                             ..... Petitioner
                   Through             Mr.Manoranjan Mishra, Adv.

                   versus

       SAMIR CHAWLA & ORS.                              ..... Respondents
                   Through             Mr.Tanuj Khurana, Adv.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The petitioner Ravi Chandra Naik filed the petition under Section 15(2) read with Section 12, 13 and 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of substitute arbitrator as the earlier sole arbitrator withdrew from his office. The prayer made in the petition is that substitute arbitrator be appointed in place of Mr.S.C. Chawla.

2. Mr.Tanuj Khurana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, has raised two points; first that there was no live issue left between the parties as controversy is ceased to exist in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and issuance of No Dues Letter issued by the petitioner to the respondent and second that the petition is hopelessly time barred and it is not necessary now to adjudicate the disputes which do not exist in view of the conduct of the petitioner.

3. The admitted position is that an agreement was executed between the petitioner and respondent No.1 on 20th December, 2005 wherein the

petitioner was liable to supply food to restaurant of respondent No.1. During the last week of February 2008, certain disputes arose between the petitioner and the respondent no.1 which were according to respondents compromised on 31st March, 2008. An amount of `50,000/- by way of cheque No.639672 and `13,134.82 was paid by virtue of bankers cheque by the respondent No.1 to the petitioner. The petitioner issued a letter stating "there is no outstanding of dues towards Regent Restaurant as on 31.03.2008 and this is a nil balance". Thereafter, there was no communication from other side of any nature between the parties. It was only on 6 th March, 2011 a legal notice was issued by the petitioner raising a demand.

4. Mr.S.C. Chawla, son of late Sh. I.D. Chawla was appointed as the sole arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute. The petitioner before him filed an application/written statement dated 25th April, 2011 under Section 13(2) read with section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The allegation of the petitioner against Mr.Chawla was that the sole arbitrator without passing any order on the application and without issuing any notice had stated that his appointment cannot be challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter also filed the claim statement on 29 th July, 2011. However, on 26th September, 2011 Mr.S.C. Chawla withdrew from his office. The present application has now been filed by the petitioner for appointment of substitute arbitrator in place of Mr.S.C. Chawla.

5. The petitioner has admitted before Court that he has received a sum of `50,000/- and `13,134.82 on 15th July, 2008 and also admitted two receipts issued by him as well as his signatures on these receipts after showing the original to him. He has also admitted his signature on the original letter produced by the respondents which was issued by him. The contents of the said letter read as under:

"I Ravi Chander Naik S/o Sh Banmali Naik R/o 30A, Pocket- VI MIG Flat, Mayur Vihar Phase-III, Delhi Received our security deposit amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousand Only) vide ch.no.639672 dated 15/07/2008 drawn on syndicate bank, new delhi from Regent Restaurant, New Delhi and balance amount of Rs.13,134.82/- (Rs.Thirteen Thousand One hundred Thirty Four and Paise Eighty Two Only) against bill of food supply in restaurant.

There is no outstanding or dues towards Regent restaurant as on 31.03.2008 and there is nil balance."

6. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that these are manipulated documents. One is failed to understand that on one hand he has alleged that the said receipts as well as the letter bear his signature and issued by him. The bankers' cheques given to him admittedly having been encashed by him (the details are mentioned in the letter) and on the other hand he has made the statement that these are manipulated documents. Two different statements made by him are unacceptable to the court as on the face of the letter issued by him, nothing is due from the respondents. The other important aspect of the matter is that after the execution of these documents and receipt of money, he had made his grievance only in the month of March, 2011 i.e. after about three years. Why he kept quiet during this period, reasons of which are only known to him.

7. The only argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as earlier sole arbitrator was appointed who has withdrawn from his office thus no prejudice would be caused if substitute arbitrator be appointed. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the material documents available on record as it is settled law that it is for the Court to

examine as to whether the claim is a dead or in the sense whether the parties have already concluded the transaction and have recorded satisfaction on their mutual rights and obligations regarding financial claims. After examining the said satisfaction recorded, if the Court is satisfied that there is no question or issue remaining to be decided between the parties then the relief sought by a party cannot be granted unless after examining the documents the court still finds that there are some disputes remaining between the parties in respect of the agreement then the situation is different.

8. In the present case, if we see the letter issued by the petitioner, it is very clear that he has received security deposit of `50,000/- as well as balance amount of `13,134.82 against the bill of food supply of restaurant. There is a specific admission which is made by him that there is no outstanding or dues towards Regent Restaurant as on 31 st March, 2008 and this is a nil balance. Further, he remained silent for about three years after execution of the said documents. In view of the admitted position of the matter, he cannot be allowed to raise the plea of manipulated document when he himself has enjoyed the benefit of the same very documents. His claims are also barred on account of long delay.

9. In view of above said reason, I am of the view that there is no existence of live claim between the parties. Thus, the prayer sought by the petitioner cannot be allowed. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to cost.

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE JANUARY 28, 2013/jk