Delhi High Court
Dlf Limited vs M/S Ranutrol Industries Pvt Ltd on 18 January, 2022
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 18.01.2022
+ ARB.P. 1111/2021
DLF LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Dheeraj P. Deo & Mr.Abhishek
Grover, Advs.
Versus
M/S RANUTROL INDUSTRIES PVT LTD ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Sanjay Kr. Yadav & Mr.Rohit
Kathuria, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (oral)
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
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 inter se the parties.
2. Pertinently, petitioner is a limited company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 and is involved in the business of providing
development, management and investment services in relation to real estate
projects.
3. According to the petitioner, respondent is a private limited company
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business
of sanitary goods such as bottle traps, angle valves, towel rods, water
mixers, extension nipples, pillar cocks etc.
4. As per the averments made in the present petition, petitioner issued a
purchase orders bearing no. ULT/POD/0013/1718 and SKT/POD/0016/1718
to the respondent with respect to purchase of sanitary goods such as bottle
trap, angle valve, health faucets, etc. and in respect thereof, a warranty
certificate was issued by the respondent stating that if any manufacturing
defects are found, replacement will be provided on FOC basis. Thereafter on
10.05.2018, petitioner's project management consultant sent an email to the
respondent mentioning that the materials supplied are underweight than
what was stipulated in the purchase order. In response thereto, respondent
agreed for the replacement of the defective goods, however, vide email
dated 23.5.2018, it was mentioned that the Respondent manufactured only
one kind of Extension pipes that are of standard quality thereby absolving
the Respondent of any replacement of the defective goods.
5. On 30.05.2019, petitioner's management consultant wrote a letter to
petitioner about the grievances of the customers of petitioner with respect to
the products of respondent and recommended to recover the amounts
advanced to the respondents with respect to purchase of their goods and also
recommended to stop giving further orders. Accordingly, petitioner through
its consultant proposed termination of procurement of materials from the
respondent company and blacklisted it for all upcoming projects of DLF.
6. Learned counsel next submitted that on 07.05.2021, petitioner sent
legal notice to the respondent to refund the amount of Rs.80,14,857/- within
15 days for the defective/damaged material supplied. Thereafter vide notice
dated 29.06.2021, petitioner invoked arbitration clause 18 of the purchase
order under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and
requested respondent to appoint an arbitrator.
7. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent has disputed the averments made in the present petition,
however, submitted that the issues are arbitrable and this Court may appoint
an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties subject to all
issues remain open before the learned Arbitrator.
8. Accordingly, Mr. Pramod B. Agarwala, Advocate (Mobile:
9999105066) is appointed sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between
the parties.
9. The fee of the learned Arbitrator shall be governed by the Fourth
Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
10. The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.
11. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Arbitrator for information.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
JANUARY 18, 2022/ab
