Delhi High Court
Denso India Ltd vs Technico Industries Ltd on 23 October, 2013
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 23.10.2013
+ ARB.P. 241/2013
DENSO INDIA LTD ..... Petitioner
versus
TECHNICO INDUSTRIES LTD ..... Respondent
ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE:
For the Petitioner: Mr Sonal Kumar Singh & Ms Aakanksha Singh,
Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr N.K. Bhardwaj, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
1. This is a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration &
Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act) for appointment of an arbitrator.
Notice in this petition was issued on 31.05.2013. Since then the respondent
has entered appearance and filed its reply. The petition is resisted primarily
on two grounds. First, that there is no dispute obtaining between the parties.
Second, that the claim for payment of interest is not covered by the
arbitration agreement obtaining between the parties, which is contained in
clause XXII of the agreement.
2. The respondent has supplied various reasons in its reply including the
fact that an amended agreement was circulated on 16.10.2012 for inclusion
of clause for payment of interest. It is therefore, apart from anything else,
the stand of the respondent that a provision for interest was made
prospective and, therefore, it was never the intention of the parties to
provide for payment of interest on delayed payment, which is what the
petitioner has claimed in the present petition.
3. To be noted, the petitioner in terms of clause X(2) of the agreement is
claiming interest for payments made against supplies made by it to the
responded beyond the 27th day of the month in which the supplies were
made.
4. After some arguments, learned counsel for the respondent says that
these are aspects that the respondent would contend before the learned
arbitrator and, therefore, the respondent would have no objection to an
arbitrator being appointed as the claim in the petition whether sustainable or
not, would have to be contested before the arbitrator.
5. In these circumstances, the petition is allowed without prejudice to the
rights and contentions of the respondent in respect of the averments made in
the present petition with regard to the claim. Accordingly, Mr Justice S.N.
Aggarwal, a former Judge of this Court (Mb No. 8860091011), as agreed to
by the counsels for the parties, is appointed as an arbitrator in the matter.
6. Learned counsels for the parties also agree that the arbitration
proceedings should be governed by rules and fee schedule prescribed by the
Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). It is ordered accordingly.
7. Parties and their counsel shall appear before the DIAC on 29.11.2013
at 3.00 p.m. Needless to say, parties shall be free to prefer their claim and
counter claim, if any, which shall be decided by the learned arbitrator in
accordance with law.
8. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
OCTOBER 23, 2013
kk
