Facts
The Petitioner sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in connection with disputes arising from a Sale Agreement dated 8 May 2013 and the Respondent’s purported non-payment of dues.
Source reference: p. 1, paras. 3–4The agreement contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration by a sole arbitrator, with New Delhi as the seat and English as the language.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 5The Court considered service sufficient, but the Respondent did not appear; the matter proceeded ex parte.
Source reference: p. 1, paras. 1–2Issues
1. Whether the Court could appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11 where the agreement contained an arbitration clause covering the parties’ disputes.
Source reference: pp. 1–2, paras. 4–62. Whether the Respondent’s non-appearance prevented the Court from proceeding with the appointment.
Source reference: p. 1, paras. 1–2Law Applied
Under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court’s enquiry is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.
Source reference: p. 1, para. 4Clause 18 of the parties’ agreement provided for arbitration of disputes arising out of or relating to the agreement and specified a sole arbitrator, New Delhi as the seat, and English as the language.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 5The appointed arbitrator must furnish the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the Act.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 8Reasoning
The Court identified Clause 18 as an arbitration agreement covering disputes arising from the Sale Agreement and found no impediment to appointing a sole arbitrator.
Source reference: pp. 2–3, paras. 5–7The Respondent’s absence, despite sufficient service, led the Court to proceed ex parte; the order nevertheless left all pleas, including objections to arbitrability and jurisdiction, open for determination by the arbitrator.
Source reference: pp. 1, 3, paras. 1–2, 10The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the Section 11 petition and would not affect the arbitrator’s independent consideration of the merits.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 11Holding
The petition was allowed and disposed of by appointing Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Advocate, as sole arbitrator.
She was directed to enter upon the reference within three weeks and furnish the required disclosure under Section 12(2); the arbitration is to be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, with fees as per its Schedule of Fees.
Source reference: pp. 2–3, paras. 7–9, 13The parties may raise their pleas before the arbitrator, and any pending applications were also disposed of.
Source reference: p. 3, paras. 10, 14Acts & Sections Cited
2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19962
Original Court PDF
Mcgraw Hill Education (India) Private LimitedvsMr Manoj Jain
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
