Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
IAAP/43/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
PETN.
UNDER ARBITRATION ACT No. 43 of 2011
=========================================================
DEN
NETWORKS LTD THRO. H P SINGH - Petitioner(s)
Versus
JAYESH
S PATEL - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SACHIN D VASAVADA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR PM LAKHANI for Respondent(s) : 1,
MRS RP
LAKHANI for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR RH RUPARELIYA for Respondent(s)
: 1,
MR.MANOJ T DANAK for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 09/09/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
petitioner has approached this Court for appointment of an arbitrator
in terms of agreement dated 01.04.2008 in which, Clause 28 reads as
under:-
“28.1.
Any dispute between the Parties inter se arising out of or in
relation to this Agreement shall be resolved by the Parties mutually
within fifteen days of one party giving to the others, notice of the
said dispute, failing which the said dispute shall be referred to
arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. Since the dispute
arose between the parties while working out the said agreement, the
petitioner issued notice dated 28.02.2011 to the respondent for
making appointment of an arbitrator of the petitioner’s choice
and urging the respondent to do so.
However, since the respondent did not suggest any name of an
arbitrator of his choice, the petitioner has approached this Court in
the present Arbitration Petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator
under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
3. Notice to the
respondent issued. The respondent appeared through the advocate and
filed affidavit-in-reply.
Main objection of the respondent is that Arbitration Clause
envisages that the proceedings shall be held at New Delhi and
therefore, present petition filed in this Court is not maintainable.
However,
it is not in dispute that the respondent is stationed at Vadodara,
the agreement required certain channel work to be done at Vadodara
and it is out of such an agreement that dispute arose between the
parties.
4. In
that view of the matter, simply because the agreement envisages
sitting of Arbitrator at
New Delhi, it cannot be said that the present application is not
maintainable before this Court.
5. Another
objection of the respondent is that the petitioner is the Den
Networks Limited whereas, the agreement was enter into between the
respondent and Den Digital Entertainment Networks Pvt.Ltd.
6. Learned
counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the present petitioner
Den Networks Limited was formerly known as Den Digital Entertainment
Networks Pvt.Ltd. There is no other change of constitution of the
company.
7. In
that view of the matter, this objection is also not entertained.
8. In
view of the above, Justice D.A. Mehta (Retd.) is requested to act as
an arbitrator to resolve the disputes between parties arose out of
the said agreement dated 01.04.2008. This petition is disposed of
accordingly.
(AKIL
KURESHI, J.)
Hitesh
Top