Anil Kumar Gupta v. Amr Infrastructures Ltd

ORDER

20.05.2013 + + Petitioner Respondent Petitioner Respondent I.A.No.8202/2013 (exemption) in Arb.P.No.208/2013 and I.A.No.8204/2013 (exemption) in Arb.P.No.209/2013 Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. The applications are disposed of I.A.No.8203/2013 in Arb.P.No.208/2013 and I.A.No.8205/2013 in Arb.P.No.209/2013 The abovernentioned applications have been filed by the respective petitioners for condonation of delay of 66 days in re-filing the petitions. Signed By:RAM DATT Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed and the delay in re-filing is condoned. The applications are disposed of Arb.P.No.208/2013 & Arb.P.No.209/2013 The abovernentioned petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners, namely Anil Kumar Gupta and his wife Bhawana Gupta, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator. The facts are common in both the matters. Therefore, these petitions are decided together. The petitioners in both the matters issued notices dated 3rd August, 2012 under Section 11 of the Act for invoking the arbitration relying upon the MOU dated 26th August, 2009. The contention of the petitioners is that there is no compliance on behalf of the respondent with regard to the ten-is and conditions of the said MOU. The notices of the petitioners were replied by the respondent, who is relying upon the Compromise Deed dated 21s' December, 2011. The contention of the respondent in the reply is that nothing has been due as all the issues raised have already been settled by virtue of the Compromise Deed dated 21St December, 2011 after the MOU in question. During the course of the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners has admitted that the Compromise Deed is signed by his respective clients. He has also admitted that his clients have received the payment in terms of the Compromise Deed. Admittedly, the Compromise Deed is subsequent to the period of the MOU. In view thereof, it appears that there is no dispute remains between the parties which could be adjudicated by the Arbitrator. Since there is no live dispute between the parties, the petitions are totally misconceived and the same are accordingly dismissed. VftS"f'4V MAY 20, 2013/ka I

$51&52 ^k * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ARB.P. 208/2013 ANIL KUMAR GUPTA Through Mr. Arpit Gupta, Adv. versus AMR INFRASTRUCTURES LTD Through None ARB.P. 209/2013 BHAWANA GUPTA Through Mr. Arpit Gupta, Adv. versus AMR INFRASTRUCTURES LTD Through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH