Delhi High Court
Celsius Healthcare Pvt Ltd vs Deepti Gambhir Proprietor Of S P ... on 4 September, 2024
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~6 and 7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ARB.P. 1012/2024
CELSIUS HEALTHCARE PVT LTD .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Kirti Mewar, Adv.
versus
DEEPTI GAMBHIR PROPRIETOR OF
S P DISTRIBUTORS .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rishab Raj Jain and Mr.
Sharique Hussain, Advs.
+ ARB.P. 1015/2024
CELSIUS HEALTHCARE PVT LTD .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Kirti Mewar, Adv.
versus
S P ENTREPRENEUR AND ORS .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rishab Raj Jain and Mr.
Sharique Hussain, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 04.09.2024
1. This is a petition filed under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961, for reference of the disputes
between the parties to arbitration.
1 "the 1996 Act", hereinafter
Arb. P. 1012/2024 & conn.
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 1 of 5 Digitally Signed
KUMAR By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:05.09.2024 Signing Date:05.09.2024
17:55:52 17:55:03
2. The dispute arises in the context of an agreement dated 1
November 2020 executed between the petitioner and the respondent.
Clause 19 of the agreement envisages resolution of disputes through
arbitration and reads thus :
"19. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
In the event of any dispute arising between the Company and the
Consignment Sales Agent out of or in relation to the present
agreement including any question regarding its existence, validity
or termination, may be resolved by mutual discussion at the
corporate office of the Company, failing which shall be referred to
and finally resolved by Arbitration exclusively at DELHI under the
provisions of Arbitration & Conciliation Act,1996. All disputes
between the parties to be conducted by a sole arbitrator duly
appointed by the Company which shall deem to be accepted by the
Consignment Sales Agent, subject to the provisions of Arbitration
& Conciliation Act, 1996. The seat, or legal place, of arbitration
shall be exclusively at DELHI which shall be governed by laws
prevalent in India. The decision of such arbitrator shall be final &
binding upon the parties"
3. The petitioner issued a notice to the respondent under Section
21 of the 1996 Act on 6 January 2023 seeking reference of the
disputes between the parties to arbitration. The respondent replied on
24 January 2023 denying the existence of any arbitral disputes and
also refuted the request for reference of the disputes to arbitration.
4. As the parties have not been able to arrive at a consensus
regarding arbitration, the present petition has been filed under Section
11(5) and Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act for reference of the disputes
between the parties to arbitration.
5. Mr. Rishabh Raj Jain, learned counsel for the respondent,
Arb. P. 1012/2024 & conn.
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 2 of 5 Digitally Signed
KUMAR By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:05.09.2024 Signing Date:05.09.2024
17:55:52 17:55:03
however, contested the matter. He submits that there is no arbitrable
dispute in existence. The petitioner has not raised any claim against
the respondent but has essentially disputed the legitimacy of the
respondent's claim against the petitioner.
6. Ms. Kirti Mewar, learned counsel for the petitioner, refutes this
contention and submits that the averments contained in the Section 21
notice issued by her client to the respondent clearly indicate the
existence of disputes. She, moreover, submits that the notice also
raised grievances against the respondent engaging third parties who
are employing coercive measures against the petitioner.
7. Given the amplitude of the expression "dispute", it may not be
possible for this Court to hold conclusively that there is no dispute
between the parties, even if, there is no monetary claim raised by the
petitioner against the respondent in the Section 21 notice.
8. Besides, after the judgment of the Supreme Court in SBI
General Insurance Co Ltd v. Krish Spinning2, a Court exercising
jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act, is only required to
examine whether there exists an arbitration agreement between the
parties. Para 114 of the report specifically says that the court is to see
nothing else. The only other aspect which the court has to bear in
mind is whether the Section 11(6) petition has been filed within three
years of the Section 21 notice initiating the arbitral proceedings.
2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754
Arb. P. 1012/2024 & conn.
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 3 of 5 Digitally Signed
KUMAR By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:05.09.2024 Signing Date:05.09.2024
17:55:52 17:55:03
9. Both these conditions stand satisfied in the present case.
10. As such, as the parties have not been able to arrive at a
consensus regarding arbitration, this Court has necessarily to step in.
11. Accordingly, this dispute is referred to arbitration under the
aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre3.
12. The arbitration shall take place under the aegis of the DIAC and
would abide by its rules and regulations.
13. The learned arbitrator shall be entitled to charge fees as per
schedule of fees maintained by the DIAC.
14. The learned arbitrator is also requested to file the requisite
disclosure under Section 12(2) of the 1996 Act, within a week of
entering on reference.
15. All questions of fact and law including existence of any dispute
between the parties and the arbitrability of the disputes, if any, are left
open to be adjudicated by the learned Arbitrator.
16. The facts in this case are identical to Arb. P. 1012/2024. The
arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties is also
3 "the DIAC", hereinafter
Arb. P. 1012/2024 & conn.
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 4 of 5 Digitally Signed
KUMAR By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:05.09.2024 Signing Date:05.09.2024
17:55:52 17:55:03
identical. The only difference between these two cases is the claims of
the respondent against the petitioner which according to the petitioner
are without substance.
17. Accordingly, this dispute is also referred to arbitration under the
aegis of the DIAC. The DIAC is requested to appoint a common
Arbitrator in both these petitions. The respondent is at liberty to raise
counter claims before the learned Arbitrator in accordance with law.
18. The petitions stand disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
SEPTEMBER 4, 2024
yg
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Arb. P. 1012/2024 & conn.
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 5 of 5 Digitally Signed
KUMAR By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:05.09.2024 Signing Date:05.09.2024
17:55:52 17:55:03
