Delhi High Court
Taxmann Publications Private ... vs Vineet Sodhani & Anr. on 4 July, 2017
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 04.07.2017
+ ARB.P. 234/2017
TAXMANN PUBLICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
versus
VINEET SODHANI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Saurabh Kansal, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr Amresh Anand, Advocate.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking appointment of an
Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,
1996 (herein referred to as 'the Act').
2. As per the petitioner, respondent No.1 as an Author approached
the petitioner (a publisher) in the year 2012 with the intention of
exploring the possibility of developing and publishing some of his
works.
3. An Agreement dated 26.06.2012 was entered into.
Subsequently, respondent No.2 was also inducted as the Author.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that after the Agreement dated
26.06.2012, Agreements dated 15.01.2013 and 28.10.2014 were
signed between the parties.
5. Disputes have arisen. Notice dated 16.02.2017 was issued by
the petitioner under section 11 of the Act, nominating their arbitrator
and calling upon the respondents to nominate their arbitrator in terms
of the Arbitration Agreement.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this petition contending
that there is an arbitration agreement contained in Agreements dated
15.01.2013 and 28.10.2014. The disputes are sought to be resolved in
terms of Agreement dated 28.10.2014.
7. The Arbitration Agreement as contained in Clause 14 of the
Agreement dated 28.10.2014, inter alia, reads as under:-
"14. Court's Jurisdiction: In case of any dispute arising
as to interpretation of terms of this agreement or in case
of violation of this agreement by any party, the matter
shall --
a. first of all, be attempted to be solved amicably
through mediation or conciliation; and
b. if said attempts fail, the matter will be referred for
arbitration to a tribunal comprising of three
members, one member being appointed by
publisher, second one being appointed by author
and third one to be appointed by the first two
members.
Subject to above, all legal proceedings shall be subject to
Delhi Jurisdiction."
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that
though Agreements were executed on the dates, as referred to by the
petitioners, he disputes the contents of Agreements dated 15.01.2013
and 28.10.2014. He submits that the Agreements executed on
15.01.2013 and 28.10.2014 were on the same lines as the Agreement
dated 26.06.2012.
9. He submits that the Agreement dated 26.06.2012 is not denied,
however, the dispute is with regard to Agreements dated 15.01.2013
and 28.10.2014. He submits that both the Agreements did not contain
an Arbitration Clause. Learned counsel also admits that the signatures
appearing on the last page of Agreements dated 15.01.2013 and
28.10.2014 as that of the respondents.
10. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that
the petitioner, in the first notice dated 03.01.2017, had though referred
to the Agreement dated 28.10.2014, but had not specifically stated
that there was an arbitration clause or proceedings under the Act,
would be taken, on the contrary, the petitioner had stated that
petitioner would pursue appropriate legal proceedings in the Court of
Law implying thereby that there was no Arbitration Agreement.
11. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents do not
have a copy of the Agreements dated 15.01.2013 and 28.10.2014, as
none were supplied to the respondents.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Agreement
dated 15.01.2013 is apparently a forged document inasmuch as the
address mentioned on the document dated 15.01.2013 of the
respondents is that of a property that they neither owned nor
possessed at that point of time. He submits that the said property was
acquired by the respondents much later towards the end of 2013.
13. Learned counsel, however, fairly concedes that the document
annexed as Agreement dated 26.06.2012 is not disputed by the
respondent.
14. The dispute raised by the respondent is with regard to the
existence of an arbitration clause in the Agreements dated 15.01.2013
and 28.10.2014. The respondents candidly admit that they do not
have copies of the Agreement in their possession.
15. It is admitted by the respondents that Agreements dated
15.01.2013 and 28.10.2014 were executed between the petitioner and
respondents, however, the case of respondent is that there was no
arbitration clause in the said Agreements.
16. Since the respondents do not have copies of the Agreements
dated 15.01.2013 and 28.10.2014 in their possession, as none was
allegedly supplied, there is no basis for the respondents to contend
that the contents of the said agreements are not what they had signed
in the year 2013 and 2014 respectively.
17. The respondents admittedly have signed on the last page of the
Agreement. It is not their case that they had signed on all pages and
only the last page has been produced and the initial pages have been
replaced, but their case is that admittedly they signed on the last page.
If a party signs only on the last page of a document and not on all the
pages, the party cannot thereafter be permitted to deny the contents of
the document merely because the pages are not signed. More so in a
case where the party has not even bothered to obtain a copy for its
record.
18. It is also not the case of the respondents, that post 15.01.2013
(the date of the Agreement) till 06.01.2017, when reply to the legal
notice of the petitioner was sent, they ever demanded from the
petitioner a copy of the Agreements or the petitioner declined to
supply the same.
19. Since the respondents are not in a position to produce, a copy of
the Agreements dated 15.01.2013 or 28.10.2014, the objection raised
by the respondents is not sustainable.
20. Since the petitioners have filed this claim based on the
Agreement dated 28.10.2014 by which date admittedly the
respondents had already purchased the property, the address of which
is mentioned in the Agreement dated 28.10.2014, the contention that
the address of the respondent mentioned on agreement 15.01.2013
establishes that the said document is forged would not ipso facto make
the agreement dated 28.10.2014 as a forged document.
21. There is no other objection raised by the respondents with
regard to the agreement dated 28.10.2014.
22. In view of the above, I am unable to accept the contention of
the respondents that there is no Arbitration Agreement between the
parties.
23. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the disputes
are not substantial, the petitioner have no objection to appointment of
an independent sole arbitrator to adjudicate their disputes. Learned
counsel for the respondent submits that without prejudice to his rights
and contentions, since his pleas have been rejected, and as the
disputes are not of a very high value, a Sole Arbitrator be appointed.
24. Accordingly, Mr G.P.Thareja, Additional District Judge (Retd.)
(Mobile No.9899664642), is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to
adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
25. The Arbitral Tribunal shall examine the claims of the petitioner
and the counter claims, if any of the respondents. Subject to the
Arbitrator making the necessary disclosure under Section 12 of the
Act not being ineligible under Section 12(5) of the Act.
26. The Arbitrator shall fix his fee in consultation with the learned
counsel for the parties.
27. The parties are at liberty to approach the learned Arbitrator for
elucidating the necessary disclosures and for further proceedings.
28. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
29. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JULY 04, 2017'Sn'
