Delhi High Court
M/S Sudhir Power Projects Ltd vs M/S Unipower Projects Pvt. Ltd. on 30 March, 2022
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 30th March, 2022
+ ARB.P. 1199/2021
M/S SUDHIR POWER PROJECTS LTD ..... Petitioner
versus
M/S UNIPOWER PROJECTS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellants: Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Mr. Nakul Jain
and Ms. Hyyat Ahluwalia, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Gurpreet Singh Sachdeva, Advocate
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
1. Petitioner seeks appointment of an Arbitrator under Section
11(5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. It is contended that the parties had entered into an agreement
and a work order was placed on the respondent dated 11.06.2021
which contains an arbitration clause.
3. The Arbitration Clause 19 reads as under: -
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:30.03.2022
Signing Date:31.03.2022 12:06:22 21:39
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
"19. Dispute Resolution / Arbitration & jurisdiction:
Any dispute or difference whatsoever arising betweenthe
parties out of or relating to the construction, meaning,
scope operation or effect of this contract or the validity
or the breach thereof shall be settled by arbitration in
accordance with Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
and the award made in pursuance thereof shall be
binding on the parties. The dispute shall bereferred to the
arbitration of Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by
CMD/MD of SPPL, whereas Seat and venue of the
arbitration shall be New Delhi/Gurugram and the
proceedings shall be undertaken in English."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the registered
office of both petitioner as well as respondent is in Delhi and
accordingly petitioner has exercised the option to approach the Courts
at Delhi.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier a
Purchase Order was sent by email dated 11.06.2021 and all the terms
and conditions were contained in the Purchase Order and Respondents
were requested to accept the same. However, the Respondent by their
email dated 12.06.2021 raised certain issues with regard to the terms
of payment.
6. Subsequently a revised Purchase Order was sent on 17.06.2021
revising the terms of payment. Clause 19 of both the Purchase Orders
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:30.03.2022
Signing Date:31.03.2022 12:06:22 21:39
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
remained the same. It is stated that by e-mail dated 17.06.2021,
respondent accepted the Purchase Order with the terms mentioned
therein.
7. Only objection raised by the respondent in these proceedings to
the appointment of an Arbitrator is that is there is no written
agreement between the parties. The email by which the Purchase
Order and the terms therein have been accepted are not denied.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the
purchase of order referred to by the petitioner is merely a work order
and not a purchase order.
9. Perusal of the Purchase Order dated 11.06.2021 shows that the
same bears a heading "work order/contract". The email with which
the same has been sent mentions the same as a Purchase Order.
However, nothing really turns on the description of the document as
the said document contains several terms and conditions and one of
the terms being clause 19 containing the Arbitration Clause extracted
hereinabove.
10. Further the petitioner has also placed on record the
communication dated 13.09.2021 sent by the respondent
acknowledging the work order dated 11.06.2021 referred to herein
above.
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:30.03.2022
Signing Date:31.03.2022 12:06:22 21:39
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
11. Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, inter-
alia, stipulates that an arbitration agreement is in writing, if it is
contained in exchange of letters, italics telegrams or other means of
telecommunications including communication through electronic
means.
12. The very fact that petitioner had sent a Purchase Order
contacting the terms and conditions of the contract requesting the
respondent to accept the same and the said email and Purchase Order
is admittedly received by the respondent and respondent by their
email have not only acknowledged the receipt but specifically stated
that they accept the PO along with its terms.
13. Said exchange of correspondence clearly satisfies the
requirement of a written agreement between the parties as envisaged
in Section 7 (4) (b) of the Arbitration Act. None of the emails or the
communication placed on record by the petitioner are denied by the
respondent.
14. In view of the above, this petition is allowed.
15. The disputes are referred to the Delhi International
ArbitrationCentre (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.
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:30.03.2022
Signing Date:31.03.2022 12:06:22 21:39
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
16. The arbitrator would be entitled to charge fees in accordance
with the schedule of fee stipulated by the DIAC.
17. The arbitrator shall furnish the requisite disclosure under
section 12(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 within one
week of entering reference.
18. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MARCH 30, 2022
'rs'
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:30.03.2022
Signing Date:31.03.2022 12:06:22 21:39
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
