PRANIDHI COMMERCE PVT. LTD. Vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are petitions under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act') seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

(2.) Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, learned Senior counsel for the Petitioners, relies on the decisions of this Court in Bhartia Cutler Hammer Limited v. AVN Tubes Limited, 1995 33 DRJ 672 and A.V.N. Tubes Limited v. Bhartia Cutler Hammer Limited, 1992 2 ArbLR 8, and submits that both acts of reference of disputes to an Arbitrator and the appointment of an Arbitrator cannot be by the same party and that such a clause would be, on the face of it, void. He submits that Clause 7.12 of the Loan Agreement dated 25th April 2011 can at best be read as envisaging reference of disputes to arbitration being sought by the Petitioner and the appointment of the Arbitrator by the Respondent/Lender whereas in the instant cases it is the Respondent/Lender which is the party raising the disputes and also unilaterally nominating the Arbitrator. Mr. Chandhiok submits that although the Petitioner has already nominated the Arbitrator, it will be open to the Court for appointing an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act.

(3.) Mr. Sanjeev Puri, learned Senior counsel for the Respondent, draws attention of the Court to the decision of the Supreme Court in Antrix Corporation Limited v. Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd., 2013 2 ArbLR 226 and the decision of this Court in Delhi Inframart Pvt. Ltd. v. N.K. Singhal (decision dated 13th November 2014 in Arb. P. No. 439 of 2014). He points out that by letter dated 4th December 2014 the Respondent appointed a sole Arbitrator in terms of Clause 7.12 of the Agreement. Once the Arbitrator has been appointed, the question of entertaining the present petitions under Section 11 of the Act does not arise.