Delhi High Court
The South Indian Bank Ltd vs Transstroy Dindigul - Theni - ... on 12 May, 2022
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 12th May, 2022
+ ARB.P. 822/2021
THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD ..... Petitioner
versus
TRANSSTROY DINDIGUL - THENI - KUMILI
TOLLWAYS PVT. LTD. & ANR. ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sujoy Kumar, Mr. Pradyuman and Mr. K.V.
Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Arun Varma, Senior, Advocate with Mr. Suvir
Sharma and Mr. Prakhar Khanna, Advocates for
respondent No.2.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
1. Petitioner seeks appointment of a nominee Arbitrator on behalf
of respondent No.1 so that the three member Arbitral Tribunal could
be constituted.
2. It is constituted that the subject disputes arise out of an escrow
agreement dated 04.05.2011 and substitution agreement dated
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:12.05.2022
Signing Date:13.05.2022 12:13:30 22:08
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
31.05.2013.
3. It is further contended that the petitioner as well as respondent
No.2 have already appointed their nominee Arbitrators and respondent
No.1 has failed to appoint nominee Arbitrator despite being so
requested by the petitioner.
4. It is contended that petitioner has appointed Mr. Justice A.P.
Shah, former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court as their nominee
Arbitrator and respondent No.2 has appointed Mr. Justice Badar
Durrez Ahmed, former Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High
Court as their nominee arbitrator.
5. Learned senior counsel for respondent No.2 submits that though
respondent No.2 has appointed the nominee Arbitrator, it appears that
the disputes being raised are subject matter of a concessionaire
agreement dated 12.07.2010 and do not arise out of the above referred
escrow agreement and substitution agreement.
6. He, however, without prejudice submits that in case the right of
the said respondent is reserved to raise the said issue before the
Arbitral Tribunal, he would have no objection to appointment of the
third Arbitrator.
7. Learned counsel for parties submit that in similar circumstances
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:12.05.2022
Signing Date:13.05.2022 12:13:30 22:08
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
where similar disputes arose, an Arbitral Tribunal has been
constituted comprising of Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal, former Chief
Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Mr. Justice A.P. Shah,
former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and Mr. Justice Badar
Durrez Ahmed, former Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High
Court.
8. On 13.09.2021, advocate/Official Liquidator of parent company
of respondent No.1 had entered appearance and had sought time to
take instructions with regard to its nominee Arbitrator. Thereafter,
the petition was listed on 06.10.2021, 15.11.2021, 27.01.2022,
21.03.2022 and today. None has appeared for respondent No.1.
9. In view of the above and without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of the parties, Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal, former Chief
Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court is appointed as the third
Arbitrator.
10. It is clarified that all disputes and objections being raised by
respondent No.2 are left open and would be adjudicated by the
Arbitral Tribunal, if so raised before it.
11. Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
MAY 12, 2022/NA SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:12.05.2022
Signing Date:13.05.2022 12:13:30 22:08
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
