Delhi High Court
Amardeep Builders vs G.N.C.T. Of Delhi on 13 August, 2021
$~1, 2 and 3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ARB.P. 22/2021
AMARDEEP BUILDERS ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Stuti Jain and Mr. Akshu
Jain, Advocates
versus
G.N.C.T. OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Adv. for
DSIIDC
+ ARB.P. 23/2021
AMARDEEP BUILDERS ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Stuti Jain and Mr. Akshu
Jain, Advocates
versus
G.N.C.T. OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Richa Dhawan, Adv. for
DSIIDC
+ ARB.P. 24/2021
AMARDEEP BUILDERS ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Stuti Jain and Mr. Akshu
Jain, Advocates
versus
G.N.C.T. OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Mr. R.K Dhawan, Standing
Counsel for DSIIDC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C .HARI SHANKAR
O R D E R (ORAL)
% 13.08.2021
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:15.08.2021
19:21:13
(Video-Conferencing)
C .HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. These are petitions under Section 11 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the 1996 Act"), seeking reference of the
disputes between the parties to arbitration.
2. While learned counsel for the GNCTD in Arb. P. 22/2021 and
Arb. P. 23/2021 was agreeable to the matter being referred to
arbitration by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Court, Mr. Dhawan,
learned counsel for the respondent in Arb. P. 24/2021 seeks a caveat,
while appointing the arbitrator, to the effect that the arbitrability of the
dispute as well as all defences available in law including the plea of
limitation should be left open to be agitated before the learned Arbitral
Tribunal.
3. In view thereof, I do not deem it necessary to burden this order
with any detailed reference to the facts of the case. As there are three
separate Arbitration Agreements between the parties, following the
law laid down by the Supreme Court in Duro Felguera, S.A. v.
Gangavaram Port Ltd.1, there would have to be three separate
arbitrations.
4. The arbitrator would, therefore, be entitled to three separate
fees, each of which would be fixed in accordance with the Fourth
Schedule to the 1996 Act, as requested by parties.
(2017) 9 SCC 729
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:15.08.2021
19:21:13
5. Inasmuch as the disputes are between the same parties and are
similar in nature, I deem it appropriate, in order to ensure an
expeditious resolution thereof, that the disputes be referred to
arbitration by the same arbitrator. This, in my view, would not infract,
in any manner, the Fifth Schedule to the 1996 Act or Serial No. 24
thereof, as that applies to a situation in which, at the time of
appointment of the arbitrator, he is already serving or has served in the
past, as arbitrator for either of the parties in a similar case. No such
infirmity applies in the present case.
6. As such, the disputes are referred to Hon'ble Mr Justice Rajiv
Sahai Endlaw, a learned retired Judge of this Court, who is requested
to arbitrate thereon. The learned Arbitrator may be contacted at Ph.
No. : 9717495002 and E-mail ID : [email protected]).
7. The learned arbitrator would submit the requisite disclosure
under Section 12(2) of the 1996 Act within a week of entering on
reference.
8. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the contentions of
either of the parties and all issues of facts and law remains open to be
agitated before the learned arbitrator.
9. These petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
AUGUST 13, 2021/ r.bararia
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:15.08.2021
19:21:13
