Delhi HC Appoints Sole Arbitrator In Jeeves–Streambox Dispute After Respondent Fails To Appear Despite Service

Jeeves Consumer Services Private Limited filed a petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator in a dispute with Streambox Media Private Limited.

The parties’ service agreement contained an arbitration clause providing for reference of disputes to arbitration, with the proceedings to be held in Delhi.

The respondent was served but did not appear or file a reply despite being given an opportunity to do so.

The Court considered the petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

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.

Clause 11.1 of the parties’ agreement provided for disputes to be referred to arbitration and specified that arbitration would be conducted under the Act, with proceedings held in Delhi.

The Court cited no precedent.

The Court found that the respondent had been duly served but had neither appeared nor filed a reply.

Having examined the service agreement, the Court concluded that a valid and binding arbitration agreement existed between the parties.

Applying the limited Section 11 enquiry, it found no impediment to appointing a sole arbitrator, while leaving the parties free to raise objections, including on arbitrability and jurisdiction, before the arbitrator.

The arbitration is to be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, with fees payable under its schedule; the arbitrator is to furnish the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the Act.

The petition was disposed of, with all merits and jurisdictional issues left open for determination by the arbitrator.