Delhi High Court
To The New Private Limited vs Golden Tower Infratech Ltd on 10 September, 2021
$~2 & 3 (original)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ARB.P. 428/2021
TO THE NEW PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya Dewan, Adv.
versus
GOLDEN TOWER INFRATECH LTD ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Joby P. Varghese and
Mr.Nishant Rai, Advs.
+ ARB.P. 429/2021
M/s. TO THE NEW PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya Dewan, Adv.
versus
GOLDEN TOWER INFRATECH LTD ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Joby P. Varghese and
Mr.Nishant Rai, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
O R D E R (O R A L)
% 10.09.2021
(Video-Conferencing)
ARB.P. 428/2021
1. This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking reference of the disputes, between the
parties, to arbitration.
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:13.09.2021
10:30:48
2. Mr. Varghese, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that
the only misgiving, of his client is regarding the nature of the actual
dispute being referred to arbitration, specifically the quantum of the
claim.
3. Mr. Dewan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that his
client seeks reference, to arbitration, only of his entitlement to the
amount of waiver of ₹ 57,85,750/-, indicated in Annexure A to the
legal notice dated 3rd August, 2020 by the petitioner to the respondent.
4. Mr. Varghese has no objection to the reference of the issue of
entitlement of the petitioner, to waiver of the aforesaid amount of ₹
57,85,750/-, to arbitration.
5. In view thereof, the issue of the entitlement of the petitioner to
waiver of ₹ 57,85,750/-, as sought in Annexure A of the legal notice
dated 3rd August, 2020, addressed by the petitioner to the respondent,
stands referred to arbitration. The parties are referred to the Delhi
International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), which would proceed to
appoint a suitable arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes.
6. The arbitration would proceed under the aegis of the DIAC and
in accordance with its rules and regulations.
7. The arbitrator would be entitled to fees in accordance with the
schedule of fees maintained by the DIAC.
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:13.09.2021
10:30:48
8. It is made clear that this Court has expressed no opinion on the
merits of the controversy between the parties and all questions of fact
in law remain open to agitation in the arbitral proceedings.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.
ARB.P. 429/2021
10. This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking reference, of the disputes, between the
parties, to arbitration.
11. Mr. Varghese, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that
the only misgiving, of his client is regarding the nature of the actual
dispute being referred to arbitration, specifically the quantum of the
claim.
12. Mr. Dewan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, allays this
apprehension by submitting that his client seeks reference, to
arbitration, only of his entitlement to the amount of waiver of ₹
8,90,915/-, indicated in Annexure A to the legal notice dated 3rd
August, 2020 from the petitioner to the respondent.
13. Mr. Varghese has no objection to the reference of the issue of
entitlement of the petitioner, to waiver of the aforesaid amount of ₹
8,90,915/- to arbitration by an arbitral tribunal.
14. In view thereof, the issue of the entitlement of the petitioner to
waiver of ₹ 8,90,915/-, as sought in Annexure A of the legal notice
dated 3rd August, 2020, addressed by the petitioner to the respondent,
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:13.09.2021
10:30:48
stands referred to arbitration. The parties are referred to the Delhi
International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), which would proceed to
appoint a suitable arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes.
15. Given the amounts involved, the DIAC may consider the
appointment of a single arbitrator to arbitrate in both the disputes.
16. The arbitration would proceed under the aegis of the DIAC and
in accordance with its rules and regulations.
17. The arbitrator would be entitled to fees in accordance with the
schedule of fees maintained by the DIAC.
18. It is made clear that this Court has expressed no opinion on the
merits of the controversy between the parties and all questions of fact
in law remain open to agitation in the arbitral proceedings.
19. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J
SEPTEMBER 10, 2021/kr
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:13.09.2021
10:30:48
