M/S Seacon Infratech v. Planman Technologies (India) Pvt Ltd

ORDER

09.11.2011

¶1This is a petition under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking appointment of Arbitrator.

¶2Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that parties had entered into an agreement for hiring various facilities for better enjoyment of the occupied lease space on 29.4.2010. Counsel further submits that in terms of Clause 15 of this Agreement all disputes between the parties were to be referred to a mutually agreed Arbitrator. Counsel next submits that despite notice dated 28.6.2010 having been issued to the respondent, respondent has failed to agree for appointment of an Arbitrator.

¶3Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the present petition primarily on the ground that respondent had also entered into an agreement with M/s Akriti Garments and hiring of faculties was to be done by the respondent from the petitioner, however, possession of the property was not handed over by M/s Akriti Garments to the respondent and, thus, there was no occasion for the Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. - I '\...: ·• respondent to take the services of the petitioner. It is thus submitted that present petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in case this court is inclined to appoint an Arbitrator then the names suggested by the petitioner may be ignored and an independent Arbitrator should be appointed. The respondent may also be permitted to raise grounds taken in the reply filed to the present petition.

¶4Accordingly, in view of the stand taken present petition is allowed. Mr. justice C.K. Mahajan, a former judge of this Court, (Cell No.9818000240) is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon all disputes and differences including claims and counter claims arising between the parties. It is agreed between the parties that fee of the Arbitrator shall be borne by the parties equally as per the schedule maintained by Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre subject to final award and the party who does not succeed would ultimately be responsible to pay the fee. Counsel for the petitioner has no objection. The Arbitrator shall give prior notice to the parties before commencing the proceedings.

¶5Petition stands disposed of.

¶6Let a copy of this order be sent directly to Arbitrator. NOVEMBER 09,2011 msr ARB.P. 335!2010 -~~--~·~ G.S.SISTANI,j

---- 03. $- * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 335/2010 o/o M/S SEACON INFRATECH Through: versus ..... Petitioner Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar and Mr. Shantanu Kumar, Advs. PCANMAN TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Gulshan Sharma, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI