Without Intervention of Court any for sole arbitrator filed in the court, will be further referred to Arbitration: High Court of Delhi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 2 & 3ARB.P. 428 2021 TO THE NEW PRIVATE LIMITED Through: Mr. Aditya Dewan Adv. ..... Petitioner GOLDEN TOWER INFRATECH LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Joby P. Varghese and Mr.Nishant Rai Advs. ARB.P. 429 2021 M s. TO THE NEW PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Aditya Dewan Adv. GOLDEN TOWER INFRATECH LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Joby P. Varghese and Mr.Nishant Rai Advs. HON BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR O R D E RVideo Conferencing) ARB.P. 428 2021 parties to arbitration. ARB.P. 428 & 429 2021 This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 seeking reference of the disputes between the 2. Mr. Varghese learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the only misgiving of his client is regarding the nature of the actual dispute being referred to arbitration specifically the quantum of the claim. 3. Mr. Dewan learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that his client seeks reference to arbitration only of his entitlement to the amount of waiver of ₹ 57 85 750 indicated in Annexure A to the legal notice dated 3rd August 2020 by the petitioner to the respondent. 4. Mr. Varghese has no objection to the reference of the issue of entitlement of the petitioner to waiver of the aforesaid amount of ₹ 57 85 750 to arbitration. In view thereof the issue of the entitlement of the petitioner to waiver of ₹ 57 85 750 as sought in Annexure A of the legal notice August 2020 addressed by the petitioner to the respondent stands referred to arbitration. The parties are referred to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre which would proceed to appoint a suitable arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes. The arbitration would proceed under the aegis of the DIAC and in accordance with its rules and regulations. The arbitrator would be entitled to fees in accordance with the schedule of fees maintained by the DIAC. ARB.P. 428 & 429 2021 It is made clear that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties and all questions of fact in law remain open to agitation in the arbitral proceedings. 9. With the aforesaid observations the petition stands disposed of. ARB.P. 429 2021 10. This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 seeking reference of the disputes between the parties to arbitration. 11. Mr. Varghese learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the only misgiving of his client is regarding the nature of the actual dispute being referred to arbitration specifically the quantum of the claim. 12. Mr. Dewan learned Counsel for the petitioner allays this apprehension by submitting that his client seeks reference to arbitration only of his entitlement to the amount of waiver of ₹ 8 90 915 indicated in Annexure A to the legal notice dated 3rd August 2020 from the petitioner to the respondent. 13. Mr. Varghese has no objection to the reference of the issue of entitlement of the petitioner to waiver of the aforesaid amount of ₹ 8 90 915 to arbitration by an arbitral tribunal. In view thereof the issue of the entitlement of the petitioner to waiver of ₹ 8 90 915 as sought in Annexure A of the legal notice dated 3rd August 2020 addressed by the petitioner to the respondent ARB.P. 428 & 429 2021 stands referred to arbitration. The parties are referred to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre which would proceed to appoint a suitable arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes. 15. Given the amounts involved the DIAC may consider the appointment of a single arbitrator to arbitrate in both the disputes. 16. The arbitration would proceed under the aegis of the DIAC and in accordance with its rules and regulations. 17. The arbitrator would be entitled to fees in accordance with the schedule of fees maintained by the DIAC. It is made clear that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties and all questions of fact in law remain open to agitation in the arbitral proceedings. 19. With the aforesaid observations the petition stands disposed of. SEPTEMBER 10 2021 kr C. HARI SHANKAR J ARB.P. 428 & 429 2021 

Summary: Without Intervention of Court any for sole arbitrator filed in the court, will be further referred to Arbitration: High Court of Delhi Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with the reference of the disputes, between the parties, to arbitration. The validity of arbitral award was challenged and the proceeding, of the same, was held on September 10th 2021, and was presided over by a single judge bench, consisting of JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR. The pertinent case was held in the Delhi High Court, in the matter of TO THE NEW PRIVATE LTD. V. GOLDEN TOWER INFRA TECH LTD. [ARB.P. 428/2021] filed under section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The facts of the above case, as contended by the parties are as follows. The respondents doubted the maintainability of the dispute under arbitration proceedings, with regards to the amount of claim. The above doubt arose due to the petitioner who submits that his client seeks reference, to arbitration, only of his entitlement to the amount of waiver of Rs. 57,85, 750, by a legal notice to the respondents. In furtherance to the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the only misgiving, of his client is regarding the nature of the actual dispute being referred to arbitration, specifically the quantum of the claim. The respondent had no further issues in resorting to arbitration but was only checking the validity of the said case. As a result, the same case was subjected to be heard at Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). DIAC would then be appointing a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the subject matter of the case. Keeping an account of the facts of the case and the arguments of the parties, the Hon’ble Court held that “the arbitration could be held to proceed under the aegis of DIAC and in accordance with its rules and regulations. Further, the court also put light upon the facts of the case and opined that it has expressed no opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties and all questions of fact in law remain open to agitation in the arbitral proceedings.”