Swastik Pipe Ltd vs Jagpal Sharma
2021 Latest Caselaw 3413 Del

$~2
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                             Date of decision: 10.12.2021
+     ARB.P. 101/2021
      SWASTIK PIPE LTD                                    ..... Petitioner
                          Through      Mr. Sanjay Jain and Ms. Kritika
                                       Khanna, Advs.

                          versus

      JAGPAL SHARMA                                       ..... Respondent
                  Through              Nemo

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                         J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Sections 11 (6) of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of sole

Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes with respondent.

2. As per the averments made by petitioner, petitioner is a company duly

incorporated under the Company Act, 1956. Pursuant to business dealings

and relations between the parties, respondent was purchasing ERW

Precision Tubes and C.R. Strips from the petitioner on a running account

basis. A total sum of Rs.29,34,170/- including @18% per annum from

01.04.2019 till 17.02.2020 was due against the goods already received by

respondent. Thereafter, dispute arose between the parties. Petitioner sent a

legal notice dated 27.02.2020 seeking Demand-cum-Appointment of

Arbitrator, however, the same was returned to petitioner with the remarks

"item returned as no such person in the address". Therefore, the present

petition has been filed.

3. None has appeared on behalf of respondent.

4. As per the report from Registry, service report qua notice to

respondent through ordinary, dasti, courier, speed post, e-mail, fax and

Whatsapp is awaited.

5. As per the affidavit of service filed by the petitioner, service upon

respondent has been effected through Whatsapp as is evident from 'blue

ticks' on the message sent by learned counsel for petitioner to respondent

which is a deemed service. However, despite that, respondent has preferred

not to appear before this Court. It seems that respondent has nothing to

oppose the present petition.

6. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly,

Mr. Justice (Retd.) Vinod Goel (Mobile:9910384637) is appointed sole

Arbitrator in this petition to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

7. The fee of the learned Arbitrator shall be governed by the Fourth

Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

8. The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.

9. The present petition and pending application, if any, are accordingly

disposed of.

10. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Arbitrator for information.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE DECEMBER 10, 2021 rk