Delhi High Court
M/S Caretel Infotech Limited vs M/S Spark Broadband Pvt Ltd. on 28 August, 2017
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 28.08.2017
+ ARB.P. 422/2017
M/S CARETEL INFOTECH LIMITED ..... Petitioner
versus
M/S SPARK BROADBAND PVT LTD. ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Sagar & Mr.Navin Arora, Advs.
For the Respondents : None
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. None appears for the respondent. None appeared on behalf of
respondent even on 18th August, 2017 despite service. The respondent
is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
2. The petitioner by way of the present petition under Section 11
of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act') seeks appointment of an Arbitrator.
3. As per the petitioner, the Respondent M/s Spark Broadband Pvt
Ltd was earlier known as M/s Wamika Broadband Pvt. Ltd.
4. The petitioner and the respondent entered into a Call Centre
Agreement dated 01st April, 2013. The agreement was renewed from
time to time.
5. As per the petitioner, some of the invoices raised by the
petitioner have not been paid and some of the cheques issued by the
respondents have been dishonoured and returned unencashed from the
bank leading to disputes between the parties.
6. The petitioner has invoked the arbitration clause by letter dated
11th March, 2017.
7. The arbitration clause between the parties reads as under:-
"12. Arbitration
Any disputes, differences or question which may arise at
any time hereafter between WAMIKA BROADBAND and
CARTEL touching the true constructions of this
Agreement or the rights and liabilities of the parties
hereto, the same shall be referred to the decision of a
Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the Director of
WAMIKA BROADBAND in accordance with and subject
to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 or any statutory modification or re-enactment
thereof for the time being in force. The venue of such
Arbitration shall be at New Delhi and the courts at Delhi
alone shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with
the Arbitration proceedings and the Awards in
accordance with law.
13. Jurisdiction
In case of a dispute arising out of the present Agreement,
the Courts of Delhi will only have the exclusive
jurisdiction to entertain the disputes with regard to this
Agreement."
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the
respondent has failed to appoint an Arbitrator as stipulated by the
arbitration clause despite service of the notice invoking arbitration
dated 11th March, 2017, the respondent is now disqualified from
appointing an Arbitrator. Accordingly, he prays that an independent
Sole Arbitrator be appointed.
9. Since Respondent has failed to appoint an arbitrator despite a
request being made by the petitioner, the respondent is disqualified
from appointing an arbitrator.
10. In view of the above, Mr. N.P. Kaushik (Retd.) former
Additional District Judge (Mobile No. 9910384663) is appointed as
the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
This is subject to the Arbitrator making the necessary disclosure under
Section 12 of the Act of not being ineligible under Section 12(5) of
the Act.
11. The Arbitrator shall adjudicate the claims of the petitioner and
the counter claims, if any of the respondents.
12. The fee of the Arbitrator shall be as per the fee schedule of the
Delhi International Arbitration Centre.
13. The parties are at liberty to approach the learned Arbitrator for
elucidating the necessary disclosures and for further proceedings.
14. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
15. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
AUGUST 28, 2017
'km'
