Mukhram Tewatia vs Daaj Hotels And Resorts Pvt. Ltd.
2014 Latest Caselaw 1893 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                  Order delivered on: April 15, 2014

+                         ARB.P. 154/2014

       MUKHRAM TEWATIA                                       ..... Petitioner
                  Through               Mr.Jitender Chaudhary, Adv.

                          versus


       DAAJ HOTELS AND RESORTS PVT LTD                       ..... Respondent
                    Through  None

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for appointment of an Arbitrator.

2. Brief facts for the purpose of adjudication of the petition are that pursuant to work order dated 24th November, 2010, a concluded contract dated 24th November, 2010 was entered into by the parties via exchange of emails for refurbishing of the interiors of the hotel of the respondent situated at Hyderabad.

3. In the similar manner, after due discussions and deliberations another work order dated 21st January, 2011 was issued in favor of the petitioner and a contract dated 21st January, 2011 was executed between the parties.

4. Disputes regarding delayed payments arose between the parties on account of which the petitioner wrote to the respondent for referring the

same to an arbitrator, who was to be appointed. On the other hand respondent stated that in terms of the Work Orders the disputes are to be settled by mutual discussion at Hyderabad only and in case anything is not resolved, the same would be resolved by "Shakti Parmar and Associates", the Interior Designer and its decision will be final & binding on the contractor.

5. The petitioner thereafter appointed Sh. Vishal Khattar, Advocate at Delhi as an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties however, the respondent refused to appear before the said Arbitrator. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner approached this Court for appointment of an arbitrator stating that the nominated arbitrator under the contract i.e. "Shakti Parmar and Associates" is having the vested interest in the matter since he is a business partner of the respondent and is receiving regular business and income from the respondent and therefore the nominated arbitrator is bound to act in a biased manner.

6. It is pertinent here to mention the relevant para L of the work order dated 25th November 2010 and para K of the work order dated 27 th January, 2011, both of which are signed by both the parties. The same reads as under:

"All disputes arising out of this Work Order will be settled by mutual discussion at Hyderabad only. Any item of dispute not resolved through mutual discussion will be referred to M/s Shakti Parmar and Associates, the Interior Designer and their decision will be final & binding on the contractor."

7. It is the admitted position that the respondent is situated at Hyderabad. As per the contracts entered into by the parties dated 25th November, 2010, and 27th January, 2011, the disputes were to be settled at Hyderabad only.

The arbitrator appointed by the parties i.e. M/s Shakti Parmar and Associates is admittedly situated in Mumbai.

8. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by stating that the contracts dated 24th November, 2010 and 27th January, 2011between the parties were executed at Delhi. However, the admitted position is different. Admittedly, the signed scanned copied of the work orders dated 24th November, 2010 and 27th January, 2011 were emailed to the petitioner on 24th November, 2010 and 27th January, 2011 respectively by the respondent from Hyderabad and petitioner after appending his signatures on the said work orders emailed them back to the respondent at Hyderabad. On this account, the petitioner cannot invoke the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

9. In view of the abovementioned facts and settled law, this court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter, the petition is accordingly rejected. However liberty is granted to the petitioner to file the fresh petition in the competent Court having jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition for appointment of Arbitrator.

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE APRIL 15, 2014