Delhi High Court
Scraft Products Private Limited vs Ashwani Kumar & Anr. on 21 August, 2020
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 21st August, 2020
+ CM(M) 378/2020& CM APPL. 15145/2020
SCRAFT PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
versus
ASHWANI KUMAR & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kohli, Mr. S.S. Sobti, Ms. Priyanka Ghorawat,
Mr. Raghav Marwaha, Advocates with Ms. Shivani
Agarwal, AR of the petitioner company.
For the Respondents: Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Ms. Sajal
Manchanda and Mr. Lokendra Singh Chundawat,
Advocates for Respondent No. 1.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner seeks quashing of orders dated 30.08.2019,
19.06.2019 and 05.02.2020 and also the entire arbitral proceedings
titled 'Ashwani Kumar Vs. Scraft Products Pvt. Ltd.'.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is
no arbitration agreement between the parties and even if assuming
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:21.08.2020 17:19:15
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
there was an arbitration agreement, the appointment was without any
recourse to Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
(hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act) and was unilaterally
done by the respondent. He submits that the entire proceedings are a
nullity and void ab-initio.
4. The alleged Arbitration agreement referred to by learned
counsel for the respondent is contained in fee refund agreement dated
25.04.2018 which reads as under: -
"5. In case of any dispute in execution of the
assignments as agreed above, the matter may be referred
to an arbitrator in whom both have faith, or go with legal
proceedings as per jurisdiction of Delhi Court."
5. Learned counsel for the Respondents concedes that no
application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act was filed by the
respondent before the High Court seeking appointment of an
Arbitrator also that the reference was made unilaterally. He submits
that he has no objection to the petition being allowed subject to
reserving the right of the Respondent to approach the High Court for
appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Section 11 of the Arbitration
Act.
6. In view of the above, orders dated 30.08.2019, 19.06.2019 and
05.02.2020 and the entire arbitral proceedings titled 'Ashwani Kumar
Vs. Scraft Products Pvt. Ltd.' pending before Respondent No. 2 are
quashed.
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:21.08.2020 17:19:15
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
7. It is clarified that this order will not come in the way of the
respondent approaching the High Court under Section 11 of the
Arbitration Act for appointment of an Arbitrator. However, this
would be without prejudice to the stand of the petitioner that the
above referred arbitration clause does not amount to an arbitration
agreement under the Arbitration Act and no reference to arbitration
can be made.
8. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of in the
above terms. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.
9. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and
be also forwarded to learned counsels through email.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
AUGUST 21, 2020
'rs'
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:21.08.2020 17:19:15
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
