Delhi High Court
Ashish Dutta(Sole Proprietor Of ... vs M/S Adel Landmarks Limited ... on 8 August, 2017
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 08.08.2017
+ ARB.P. 295/2017
ASHISH DUTTA(SOLE PROPRIETOR OF M/S SRISTI
COMMUNICATIONS ..... Petitioner
versus
M/S ADEL LANDMARKS LIMITED (FORMERLY
KNOWN AS M/S ERA LANDMARKS LTD. & ORS.... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav Bhattacharya, Advocate.
For the Respondent : None.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
08.08.2017
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner, by this petition under Section 11 of the
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act'), seeks appointment of an arbitrator.
2. The respondent No.1 i.e. M/s. Adel Lankmarks Limited
(formerly known as M/s. Era Landmarks Ltd.) had entered into a
Service Agreement with the petitioner for provision of Public Relation
services for themselves and for their group companies arrayed as
respondent Nos.2 to 5. As per the petitioner, the respondents failed to
pay the requisite fee and charges, agreed upon, leading to disputes
between the parties.
3. The petitioner invoked arbitration by Legal Notices dated
17.03.2015 and 28.03.2016, issued to the respondent No.1.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent
Nos.2 to 5 were arrayed as parties as the agreement was entered into
for services to be provided to them also. It is submitted that the
agreement was signed only by respondent No.1 and the notice
invoking arbitration was also issued only to respondent No.1.
5. Notice was sent to the respondents, which was duly served.
Respondents entered appearance through counsel on 05.07.2017, who
appeared and took time to file reply. Reply has not been filed.
6. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents despite the
matter being passed over. The respondents are, accordingly,
proceeded ex-parte.
7. Perusal of the agreement shows that the agreement is only
between the petitioner and respondent No.1, though it stipulates that
the services shall be provided to respondent No. 1 and Respondents 2
to 5. The agreement is signed only on behalf of Respondent No. 1.
Notice invoking arbitration has also been issued only to respondent
No.1.
8. Accordingly, in the above circumstances, an Arbitrator can be
appointed to adjudicate the disputes only between the petitioner and
the respondent No.1.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his main
grievance is only against respondent No.1 as there is privity of
contract only with respondent No.1.
10. The Arbitration Clause between the parties reads as under:
"6.13 This Agreement shall be construed in accordance
with, and governed by, the laws of India, without
regard to the conflicts of law provisions.
Competent The Courts at Delhi shall have
exclusive jurisdiction to decide any disputes
arising out of this Agreement.· Any dispute,
differences arising out of or incidental to this
Agreement or the construction or interpretation of
any of the paragraphs hereof or anything done or
omitted to be done between Agency and Client
hereto shall first be attempted to be amicably
settled by the Parties through negotiations, failing
which the same shall be referred to arbitration in
Delhi, to a sole Arbitrator appointed mutually by
the Parties and this clause shall be deemed to be
submitted to arbitration and all proceedings shall
be governed by and be subject to the provisions of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 and
any statutory modification thereof or the time
being in force. The principal language in all such
proceedings and the daily transcripts shall be in
English."
11. Since the respondent No.1 has failed to appear or even file a
response objecting to the appointment of the Arbitrator, I deem it
expedient to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between
the petitioner and the respondent No.1.
12. Accordingly, Mr. Rishi Manchanda, Advocate (Mobile #
9911681178) is appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes
between the parties. This is subject to the Arbitrator making
necessary disclosure under Section 12 of the Act not being ineligible
under Section 12(5) of the Act.
13. The Arbitrator shall adjudicate the claims of the petitioner and
counter-claims, if any, of the respondent.
14. The Arbitrator fee of the Arbitrator shall be in accordance with
the Schedule of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre.
15. The parties are at liberty to approach the learned Arbitrator for
elucidating the necessary disclosures and for further proceedings.
16. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
17. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
AUGUST 08, 2017/st
