- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 2 November 2016
- Bench
- S. Muralidhar
- Case no.
- ARB.P. 288/2015
Follow Delhi High CourtFollow S. Muralidhar
Judgment
O R D E R %
02.11.2016
¶1There are two objections raised to the appointment of an Arbitrator. The first is on the ground of limitation.
¶2As far as the above objection of limitation is concerned, the Petitioner has filed a bunch of additional documents on 25th March, 2016 which inter alia appear to indicate that some additional work was also allotted by the Respondent to the Petitioner sometime in September 2012. It also shows that bills were raised even in 2014.
¶3While the Court would not like to express any opinion on the basis of the above documents, the Court is of the view that this issue should be examined by the Arbitrator.
¶4The second objection is that the Petitioner has, while sending the notice to the Respondent, combined the claims under two different contracts whereas
the invocation of the arbitration clause should have been done separately in respect of each of the contracts.
¶5It will be open to the Respondent to raise even the second objection before the learned Arbitrator under Section 16 of the Act and the said issue will also be considered by the Arbitrator in accordance with law.
¶6The Court, accordingly, appoints Mr. H.P. Sharma, former District and Sessions Judge (Mobile No.9136524011) as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties including their claims and counter-claims. The arbitration shall take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DAC). The fee of the learned Arbitrator will be in terms of the Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre (Arbitrators Fees) Rules.
¶7The petition is disposed of. A copy of this order be communicated to the learned Arbitrator, as well as Additional Coordinator, DAC forthwith.
S.MURALIDHAR, J NOVEMBER 02, 2016 mg
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 5. + ARB.P. 288/2015 ATUL KUMAR GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mayak Wadhwa Mr. Ashwini Kumar, Advocates. versus ERA INFRA ENGINEERING LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Nilava Banerjee, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.