M/S Ultra Tech Cement Ltd v. M/S Sportina Payce Infra Pvt Ltd & Ors

$18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 1 FAO(OS) 336/2013, C.M. APPL. 11273/2013 M/S UI iRA TECH CEMENT Lii) Appellant fhrough: Sh. V.K. Monga, Advocate. versus O M./S SPOR]1NA 1AYCE INFRA PVT LTD & ORS .....Respondent Through: Neino. CORAM: 11ONIil.E MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINI)RA BIIAT IION'I3LE MR. JUSTICE NAJMJ WAZIRI 0 RI) E R %

26.07.2013 The present appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 03.05.2013 where learned Single Judge, on the defendants' application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act relegated the parties to that alternative mode of dispute resolution. The relevant condition which found favour with the learned Single Judge is part of the document. i.e. the Purchase Order for supply of Ready Mix Concrete, dated 20.05.2008. Clause 22 of the said Purchase Order reads as follows: 'All disputes or differences whatsoever arising between us relating to the construction, concreting, deployment of men and machinery meaning and operation or effect of this contract & breach thereof shall be settled by Arbitration in accordance with the rules oJ' arbitration & conciliation act of 1996 and the award made in pursuance thereof shall be binding on the parties. The venue of such arbitration shall he at Mumhai. The appellant urged that there is no arhitral dispute and that the respondents did not raise any question of arbitration or even dispute the amount sought to be claimed. It was also submitted that the question of the amount sought to he recovered being security 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. or that the defendant was entitled to withhold it cannot arise under the circumstan 0 ces. This Court is of the opinion that no interference is called for in respect of order sought to be impugned as to whether arbitral disputes exist or not which itself can be a question that can he agitated before the arbitrator. So far as the liability of the defendants to pay the amount is concerned, the Court is prima facie of the view that it itself constitutes a cause of action for the plaintiff to approach the Court and, therefore, was a dispute. In any event, 110 final opinion in the matter is being expressed. The rights of the parties to agitate all their contentions in the proceedings before the arbitral tribunal are reserved. The appeal is, therefore, without merit and is accordingly dismissed but subject to above terms. S. RAVINDRA BIIAT, J "VR 1, J JULY 26, 2013 'aj k' I. S I