Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner under 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘A&C Act’), seeking appointment of an arbitrator, Subramonium Prasad, J., appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties. Accordingly, the Court appointed Justice Arvind Sangwan, Former Judge, Allahabad High Court, as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.
In the present case, the petitioner and Respondent 1 under the Standard Transportation Agreement dated 01-03-2021 and Customs Clearing Agent Agreement dated 01-04-2022 (‘the Agreements’).
Though Respondent 2 was impleaded in the array of parties, when this Court suggested that since Respondent 2 was not a signatory to the Agreements, Respondent 2 ought to be deleted from the array of parties. The petitioner sought permission to delete Respondent 2 from the array of parties with liberty to move an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 before the Arbitrator to establish that Respondent 2 was a necessary party under the Agreements for the adjudication of the disputes. Thus, Respondent 2 was deleted from array of parties.
Further, as per the arbitration clauses of the above stated agreements, the seat of Arbitration would be at Delhi. Thus, the Court appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties. Accordingly, the Court appointed Justice Arvind Sangwan, Former Judge, Allahabad High Court, as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. The arbitration would take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (‘DIAC’) and would abide by its rules and regulations. The arbitrator should be entitled to fees as per the Schedule of Fees maintained by the DIAC.
The Court stated that the Arbitrator was also requested to file the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the A&C Act within a week of entering on reference. All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the claims/counterclaims were kept open, to be decided by the arbitrator on their merits, in accordance with law.
[Dixon Technologies (India) Ltd. v. Jaiico, ARB.P. 224 of 2025, decided on 06-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Tushar Kumar, Ishan Sehgal, Varnika Bajaj, Junaid Qureshi, Sonal Gupta, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Pallavi Singhal, Vibhu Nandan and Divyansh Singh, Advocates.
Buy Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 HERE
THere are several judgements on modification of award u/s 34 and sec 37- some in favour of no modification and some in favour of modification. I hope the judiciary in Supreme court take a note of the fact that Arbitrators are not legal professionals and justice to awards can only be done by the Courts where u/s 34 the Court is allowed to modify an award when found to be grossly wrong . Failure to do so would end up in unending and unlimited timeframe if the award found patently illegal and is set aside to start an arbitration process again. The Courts are burdened already and an end to arbitration process in ends of justice is necessary.