01Facts
The petitioner filed a petition under Sections 11(4) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator in disputes arising under a purchase order.
p. 1 · ¶ 1Clause 33 of the purchase order provided for arbitration, with the venue at Delhi.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 6The respondent was served but did not appear or file a reply.
p. 1 · ¶ 2–3The petitioner stated that its claim was approximately Rs. 1.57 crore.
p. 4 · ¶ 902Issues
i.Whether a prima facie valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties so as to permit appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act.
p. 4 · ¶ 7–8ii.Whether, in the respondent’s absence after service, the Court should appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes.
p. 1 · ¶ 2–4 · p. 4 · ¶ 1003Law Applied
Sections 11(4) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 empower the Court to appoint an arbitrator in the circumstances specified by those provisions.
At the Section 11 stage, the Court’s enquiry is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, as stated in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754.
p. 4 · ¶ 7The appointed arbitrator must furnish the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the Act.
p. 5 · ¶ 12Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11Section 12
04Reasoning
The Court noted that Clause 33 contained an arbitration mechanism and that the parties did not dispute the existence of a valid arbitration clause.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 6–8Applying the limited prima facie enquiry under Section 11, the Court found no impediment to appointment.
The respondent’s failure to appear or file a reply, despite service, did not prevent the Court from proceeding with the petition.
p. 1 · ¶ 2–405Holding
The Court allowed the petition and appointed Ms. Priya Hingorani, Senior Advocate, as sole arbitrator, directing her to enter upon the reference within three weeks and furnish the required disclosure under Section 12(2).
p. 4 · ¶ 11 · p. 5 · ¶ 12The arbitration was directed to be conducted under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, with fees as per its Schedule of Fees.
p. 5 · ¶ 13The parties were left free to raise all pleas, including objections to arbitrability and jurisdiction, before the arbitrator.
p. 5 · ¶ 14The petition was disposed of accordingly.
p. 6 · ¶ 17Original Court PDF
M/S Zillion Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd.vsNtpc Bhel Power Projects Pvt Ltd
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
