Yash Technologies Private ... vs Ce Info Systems Private Limited
2017 Latest Caselaw 2931 Del

$~2
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Judgment delivered on: 19.06.2017
+       CM (M) 657/2017

YASH TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED                                ..... Petitioner

                                       versus

CE INFO SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED                            ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner   :        Mr Raghavendra Mohan Bajaj

For the Respondent       :   Mr Kirti Uppal Senior Advocate with Mr Amit
                             P.Deshpande.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
                                JUDGMENT

19.06.2017

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

CM No.22603/2017(exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CM (M) 657/2017 & CM No.22602/2017(stay)

1. The petitioner impugns order dated 25.05.2017, whereby the

learned Additional District Judge has noticed that the petitioner has

not taken proper steps for summoning of the original arbitral record.

Petitioner has further been directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 12

lakhs within a period of ten days as against the arbitral award of

Rs.20 lakhs with interest besides cost of Rs.1 lakh.

2. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by the learned counsel for the

respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was for the

learned Court to summon the arbitral record, as the petitioner had

written letters to the Arbitrator for transmitting the record to Court

and the Arbitrator had, on the letter of the petitioner, made an

endorsement directing the petitioner to get a requisition from the

Court to submit the Arbitral Record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out to various

proceedings of the Court wherein neither notice has been issued to the

Arbitrator nor the directions issued to the Arbitral Tribunal to transmit

the original records to the Court.

5. Learned counsel submits that the order dated 25.05.2017 has

been passed as if the petitioner had committed default in not

summoning the original arbitral record.

6. Learned counsel further submits that an application for stay of

the arbitral award has been filed, which is pending and the direction

contained in order dated 25.05.2017 is not a direction in terms of

Section 36(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

7. Learned senior counsel for the respondent submits that mere

filing of a petition under section 34 of the Act does not amount to an

automatic stay of the arbitral award in view of the amendment to the

Act. He submits that since there is no interim stay, respondent is at

liberty to take appropriate steps for enforcement of the award, till it is

interdicted by an appropriate order of the Court.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the provision of

the un-amended Act will apply as the proceedings had commenced

prior to the coming into force of the Amending Act.

9. The scope of this petition is restricted to order dated

25.05.2017, as such I am not required to enter into the above

controversy and I accordingly leave the said issue open to the

considered and decided at an appropriate stage, if so raised..

10. It is, however, noticed that there is no specific order of the

learned Additional District Judge interdicting the arbitral award in any

manner.

11. In the above circumstances, the order dated 25.05.2017,

directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 12 Lakhs, is set aside.

12. It is clarified that it would be for the learned Additional District

Judge to summon the record from the Arbitral Tribunal.

13. The petition is accordingly disposed of.

14. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA (Vacation Judge) JUNE 19, 2017/'Sn'