Delhi High Court
Ancl & Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Punj Lloyd Ltd. on 29 November, 2018
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 29.11.2018
+ ARB.P. 552/2018
ANCL & CO. (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Udit Seth, Adv.
versus
PUNJ LLOYD LTD.
..... Respondent
Through Mr. vivek Jain and Mr. Manish
Shekhari, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
1 The petitioner has approached this Court on account of the
learned Arbitrator recusing from the matter. This aspect is reflected in
the procedural order dated 05.07.2018 passed by the learned
Arbitrator. For the sake of convenience, the same is extracted below:
"The proceedings were listed today for the evidence of
the claimant's witness Mr. Sanjeev Khokha. The witness
was present. However, Ld. Counsel for the respondent
sought time on the ground that Ms. Gurkamal Hora
Arora, Ld. Counsel who is to conduct the cross
examination of the witness is held up in several matters
before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and will not be in a
position to cross examine the witness today.
2 The request has been considered by the tribunal.
There is only one witness from the claimant's side and
their evidence has to be recorded and thereafter the Id.
Arb.P. No.552/2018 1 of 3
Counsel for both the sides have to address arguments.
Within the available time of just 16 days from today, the
chances of the proceedings getting concluded and the
award being passed within the time allowed by the High
Court appear to be rather dim. The Ld. Counsel for the
respondent also made it clear that they would oppose
another extension of time on the ground that the claimant
has not been able to adhere to the time frame set earlier
which is the sale reason for the proceedings getting
delayed, leaving little time from today for completion of
the evidence, addressing of the arguments and the
passing of the award. Taking note of this stand, the
arbitral tribunal is of the view that no purpose would be
served by continuing to act as the Sole Arbitrator as it
would be extremely difficult and stressful to complete the
proceedings and also pass the award with just 16 days
left from today. The parties have also to be sensitive to
the calendar and engagements of the arbitrator. In these
circumstances, this tribunal has no option but to recuse
itself from the arbitration proceedings.
Accordingly, the tribunal recuses itself. A copy of this
order may be submitted before the Hon'ble High Court
for appropriate directions."
2 Learned counsel for the respondent says that while on that
particular date i.e. 05.07.2018, the main counsel was not available for
cross-examining the petitioner's (i.e. the original claimant's) witness,
on other dates delay was occasioned on account of the petitioner.
3 Mr. Seth, who, appears for the petitioner, concedes that there
was delay. However, learned counsel says that it would be in the
interest of justice if a fresh opportunity were to be given for
adjudication of the claims on merits.
4 Having perused the record, I am of the view that the arbitration
proceedings should continue from the point at which they were
Arb.P. No.552/2018 2 of 3
positioned when the learned Arbitrator passed the aforementioned
order i.e. order dated 05.07.2018.
4.1 Having said so, the continuation of the arbitration proceedings
can only be on the following terms so that they are concluded at the
earliest:
(i) Accordingly, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K. Misra, former Judge of
this Court (Mob. No.9810039724) is appointed as an Arbitrator, in
place of Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Easwar.
(ii) The arbitration proceedings will be held under the aegis of the
Delhi International Arbitration Centre (in short 'DIAC').
(iii) The fee deposited by the parties will be paid by the DIAC in
accordance with its rules.
(iv) The rules applicable to the arbitration proceedings, as is
obvious, will be those which are framed by the DIAC.
(v) Parties and their counsel will appear before the learned
Arbitrator on 20.12.2018 at 03:00 PM. In case the date given by the
Court is not convenient to the learned Arbitrator, he is requested to fix
another date which is proximate to the aforementioned date.
5 The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
6 The Registry will despatch a copy of the order to the learned
Arbitrator.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
NOVEMBER 29, 2018
A
Arb.P. No.552/2018 3 of 3
