Delhi High Court
Mr. Yashpal Chaudhary vs Telecommunication Consultants India ... on 9 September, 2024
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ARB.P. 1217/2024
MR. YASHPAL CHAUDHARY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta and Mr.
Lalit Kumar, Advocates
versus
TELECOMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS
INDIA LTD .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 09.09.2024
1. This is a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 19961, seeking reference of the disputes between
the parties to arbitration.
2. The disputes arise out of a tender, which was awarded to the
petitioner by the respondent. The tender documents between the
petitioner and the respondent envisage resolution of disputes by
arbitration. The relevant clause reads as under :
"3.22 ARBITRATION
All disputes or differences whatsoever arising among the parties
under and / or in connection with and / or in respect of this tender
shall be referred to and decided by a sole arbitrator, who shall be
appointed by the CMD, TCIL. The arbitration shall be conducted
in accordance with Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 and
1 "the 1996 Act", hereinafter
ARB. P. 1217/2024 Page 1 of 3 Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
KUMAR HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:11.09.2024 Signing Date:11.09.2024
15:17:43 15:14:13
the venue of the arbitration shall be in New Delhi.
The proceedings of arbitration shall be in English language.
In case any Contractor wants to take the dispute to a Court of law
after arbitration award as aforesaid, it is clearly understood that
only courts in Delhi shall have the jurisdiction."
3. The dispute having arisen between the parties, the petitioner
addressed a notice to the respondent under Section 21 of the 1996 Act
on 29 November 2023, for appointment of an Arbitrator.
4. The respondent replied on 14 March 2024, denying any liability
towards the petitioner. The parties thus having not been able to arrive
at a consensus regarding arbitration, the petitioner has moved this
petition under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act.
5. Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondent,
submits that the claims are barred by time. However, in its recent
decision in SBI General Insurance Co Ltd v. Krish Spinning2, the
Supreme Court has held that the remit of a Section 11(6) Court is
extremely limited. The Court is only to examine whether there exists
an arbitration agreement between the parties and whether Section 11
(6) petition has been filed within three years of the Section 21 Notice.
6. The issue of whether the claims are barred by time has
specifically been held by the Supreme Court to be referred to the
Arbitral Tribunal.
7. Accordingly, the disputes stand referred to arbitration. This
2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754
ARB. P. 1217/2024 Page 2 of 3 Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
KUMAR HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:11.09.2024 Signing Date:11.09.2024
15:17:43 15:14:13
Court requests Mr. Dhritiman Bhattacharyya, Advocate (9818499377)
to arbitrate on the disputes between the parties.
8. The learned arbitrator shall be entitled to charge fees in
accordance with the Fourth schedule to 1996 Act.
9. 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.
10. All issues of fact and law are left open for being agitated
before the learned Arbitral Tribunal.
11. The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
SEPTEMBER 9, 2024
yg
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
ARB. P. 1217/2024 Page 3 of 3 Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
KUMAR HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:11.09.2024 Signing Date:11.09.2024
15:17:43 15:14:13
