Srl Limited vs Sarasvati Devi & Anr.
2021 Latest Caselaw 3477 Del

$~5
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                            Date of decision: 15.12.2021
+     ARB.P. 1074/2021
      SRL LIMITED                                       ..... Petitioner
                          Through      Mr.Ajay Uppal, Adv.
                          versus
      SARASVATI DEVI & ANR.           .....Respondents
                   Through  None.
      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 Section 11 (6) of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of sole

Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes with respondents.

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

incorporated under the Company Act, 1956 and is engaged inter-alia, in

providing pathological services.

3. According to the petitioner, respondents approached the petitioner for

providing pathological services and an agreement was executed between the

parties on 19.03.2018 wherein it was mutually agreed that respondents shall

carry out pathology services etc. under the monitoring of the petitioner.

However, the respondents failed to adhere the terms and conditions of the

payment specified in the abovementioned agreement and thus defaulted and

neglected to remit the invoiced amount to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the

respondents committed the breach of the terms of the agreement and as on

18.08.2020, respondents were liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,92,377.11/-

along with future interest.

5. Accordingly, petitioner was constrained to terminate the agreement

vide demand notice dated 31.08.2020 and thereafter in terms of the

Agreement dated 19.03.2018 invoked arbitration on 24.09.2021. Hence, the

present petition has been filed.

6. Respondent no.1, Sarasvati Devi, is the proprietor of respondent no.2,

Cure Pathology, however, none has appeared on behalf of both the

respondents.

7. As per office report from Registry, service report qua notice to

respondents through ordinary, dasti, courier, email, fax and Whatsapp is

awaited. Further, as per the office report from the Registry, notice sent to

respondent no.1 through the Speed post returned unserved with the remarks

"refused to accept" and notice sent to respondent no.2 through Speed post

returned unserved with the remarks "addressee has shifted".

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

respondents have been effected through email as the same is evident from

Document A which is annexed with the affidavit of service filed by learned

counsel for the petitioner. However, considering the aforesaid facts, it can be

said that respondents are deemed to be served, but despite that, respondents

have preferred not to appear before this Court. It seems that respondents

have nothing to oppose in the present petition.

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

Mr. R.S. Rathi, Advocate (Mobile: 9810868733) is appointed sole

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

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

Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

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

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.

12. The present petition stands disposed of.

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

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE DECEMBER 15, 2021/ab