Delhi High Court
Riddhi Siddhi Foods & Ors. vs Maharaj Negi on 29 March, 2022
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 29.03.2022
+ ARB.P. 1234/2021
RIDDHI SIDDHI FOODS & ORS. ..... Petitioner
versus
MAHARAJ NEGI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajbir Singh Bal, Mr. Sushant Prakash, Mr. Sahej
Singh Uban, Mr. Rishabh Shukla and Ms. Kriti Jain,
Advocates.
For the Respondent: None
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. None appears for respondent. Respondent had appeared in
person on 03.02.2022 and sought time to engage and counsel and
assist the Court. However, on 14.03.2022, none appeared for the
respondent. On 14.03.2022, this Court had noticed that reply had also
not been filed by respondent. Even today none appears for the
respondent despite pass over and even reply has not been filed.
2. In the above circumstances, Respondent is proceeded ex-party
and petition is taken up for consideration ex-party.
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:29.03.2022
Signing Date:30.03.2022 12:05:59 20:09
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
3. Petitioners have invoked arbitration in terms of partnership
agreement dated 13.10.2016, entered into between petitioners,
respondent and Mr. B. Rajagopalan, who has retired from the
partnership and a Deed of Retirement dated 31.12.2019 has been
executed by all the partners i.e., petitioner, Mr. B. Rajagopalan and
the respondents.
4. Partnership deed 13.10.2016 contains an arbitration clause in
terms of clause 17, which reads as under:-
"17. That all the disputes or differences out of it and
connected with the Partnership shall be referred to the
arbitration in accordance with the Indian Arbitration Act
and the award of the arbitrator shall be conclusive and
binding on all the partners."
5. Petitioners have invoked arbitration by their letter dated
20.08.2021 and recommended the appointment of an Arbitrator,
however, respondent has failed to accede to the request.
Consequently, petitioner has filed the subject petition under section 11
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
6. As noticed above, none appears for the respondents and no
objections have been filed to the application. Accordingly, petition is
allowed.
7. The disputes are referred to the Delhi International Arbitration
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:29.03.2022
Signing Date:30.03.2022 12:05:59 20:09
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
centre (DIAC), which would appoint an arbitrator to arbitrate the
disputes. The arbitration shall take place under the aegis of the DIAC
in accordance with its rules and regulations.
8. The arbitrator would be entitled to charge fees in accordance
with the schedule of fee stipulated by the DIAC.
9. The arbitrator shall furnish the requisite disclosure under
section 12(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 within one
week of entering reference.
10. Petition is allowed in the above terms.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MARCH 29, 2022
NA
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:29.03.2022
Signing Date:30.03.2022 12:05:59 20:09
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
