Delhi High Court
Suresh Dhanuka vs Shahnaz Husain on 12 July, 2024
Author: C.Hari Shankar
Bench: C.Hari Shankar
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ARB.P. 1008/2024
SURESH DHANUKA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shreenath A. Khemka and
Mr. Ganesh A. Khemka, Advs.
versus
SHAHNAZ HUSAIN .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Chetan Sinha and Mr. Jatin
Bhatia, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 12.07.2024
I.A. 33096/2024 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
3. Issue notice. Notice is accepted on behalf of the respondent by
Mr. Chetan Sinha.
4. This is a petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the 1996 Act"), for appointment of an
arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes between the parties.
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Digitally Signed
KUMAR By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:15.07.2024 Signing Date:15.07.2024
15:13:11 15:11:57
5. The petition emanates from an agreement dated 16 April 2008
between the petitioner and the respondent. The agreement envisages,
in Clause X, resolution of disputes by arbitration. The clause reads
thus:
"X ARBITRATION
(i) All disputes arising in connection with this MOU
shall be settled, if possible, by amicable negotiation of
the parties.
(ii) If the matter is not resolved by amicable
negotiations within 20 (twenty) business days or such
later date as may be unanimously agreed upon, then the
dispute shall be finally settled by arbitration in
accordance Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act
1996. It is specifically agreed between the parties that
the Arbitrator shall be of Indian origin.
(iii) The arbitration shall be conducted in the English
language in New Delhi. The laws of India shall govern
the validity, interpretation, construction, performance
and enforcement of the arbitration and the conduct of any
arbitration proceedings hereunder, including making the
arbitral award.
(iv) The arbitration award shall be final and binding
upon both the parties."
6. The notice dated 1 June 2024, issued by the petitioner under
Section 21 of the 1996 Act specifically avers that attempts at an
amicable resolution of the disputes, which was sought to be initiated
by the petitioner vide letter dated 20 March 2024, did not fructify.
The pre-arbitral protocol envisaged by Clause X of the agreement
having thus been exhausted, the dispute was ripe for being referred to
the arbitration.
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Digitally Signed
KUMAR By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:15.07.2024 Signing Date:15.07.2024
15:13:11 15:11:57
7. The Section 21 notice addressed by the petitioner to the
respondent suggests the name of an advocate of this Court as a sole
arbitrator. The respondent, in his reply, suggested the name of another
advocate to arbitrate. Neither side is agreeable to the name suggested
by the other.
8. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached
this Court under Section 11(5) of the 1996 Act, requesting this Court
to appoint an arbitrator.
9. Mr. Chetan Sinha, learned Counsel for the respondent has no
objection if the arbitrator is not one of the persons named by either of
the parties. Accordingly, this Court appoints Mr R V Sinha, advocate
(9868230464) to arbitrate on the disputes between the parties.
10. The learned arbitrator shall be entitled to be paid fees in
accordance with the Fourth Schedule to the 1996 Act. The learned
arbitrator is also requested to file the requisite disclosure as required
by Section 12 of the 1996 Act, at least three days before entering on
reference.
11. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
JULY 12, 2024
rb
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Digitally Signed
KUMAR By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:15.07.2024 Signing Date:15.07.2024
15:13:11 15:11:57
