Delhi High Court
Bharti P Patel And Anr & Ors. vs Mr Harcharan Singh Ranauta & Anr. on 17 February, 2022
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 17.02.2022
+ ARB.P. 28/2022
BHARTI P PATEL AND ANR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.Shiv Gupta, Adv.
versus
MR HARCHARAN SINGH RANAUTA & 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 preferred under the provisions of Section
11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of
sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes inter-se the parties.
2. As per the case of the petitioners, on 17.08.2020, the petitioners and the
respondents entered into a Loan Repayment and Settlement Agreement
whereby it was agreed that respondent No.1 would issue a post-dated cheque of
Rs.12,05,50,191/- from his account for payment of the admitted liability. It is
stated that respondent No.1 in conspiracy with other Directors of respondent
No. 2, dishonestly issued a cheque of Rs.12,05,50,191/- from the dormant
account of respondent No.2, which on presentation was returned. Thereafter,
disputes arose between the parties.
3. Accordingly, a legal notice was sent by the petitioners to the
respondents on 28.07.2021 calling upon them to pay Rs.12,05,50,191/- along
with interest @ 9% p.a. It is submitted that despite receipt of the said notice,
the respondents failed to make any payment to the petitioners.
4. Subsequently, on 20.08.2021, petitioners invoked the Arbitration Clause
in terms of the Loan Repayment and Settlement Agreement dated 17.08.2020.
It is stated that despite receipt of the said notice, the respondents failed to
appoint the arbitrator. Thereafter, petitioners moved the present petition.
5. As per office report from Registry, service report qua notice to
respondent through dasti, courier, speed post, email, fax and Whatsapp is
awaited. However, according to affidavit of service dated 08.02.2022 placed on
record by petitioner, the respondents are served. It is mentioned in the affidavit
that respondent has been served through e-mail and whatsapp. Also, process
sent through speed post has "confirmed item delivery".
6. In the opinion of this Court, respondents are duly served but they have
chosen deliberately not to appear before this Court. Thus, it seems that they
have nothing to oppose in the present petition.
7. Accordingly, Mr. Justice (Retd.) M. C. Garg (Mobile: 9899337979) is
appointed the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
8. The fee of the learned Arbitrator shall be governed by the Fourth
Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
9. The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance with Section 12 of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.
10. With aforesaid directions, the present petition is, accordingly, disposed
of.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 17, 2022/rb
