O.M.P.(T)(COMM)--45/2018. Case: WORLDS WINDOW INFRASTRUCTURE & LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. Vs. CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | O.M.P.(T)(COMM)--45/2018 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | August 14, 2018 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 24th July, 2018
Date of Decision: 14th August, 2018
+ ARB.P. 437/2018 & IA No. 7725/2018 + O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 45/2018 & IA No. 7727/2018
WORLDS WINDOW INFRASTRUCTURE & LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Amit Sibal, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Prashant Mehta, Mr.Ashutosh Shukla, Mr.Gaurav Malik,
Ms.Neeharika Aggarwal,
Mr.Dhritiman Roy, Advs. versus
CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Sandeep Sethi, ASG with Mr.Shaiwal Srivastava, Ms.Aayeshi Agarwal, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
-
This is a classic case of how a party can delay the arbitration proceedings on one pretext or another by filing repeated petitions thereby defeating the very purpose of an Arbitration Agreement.
-
The petitioner has filed Arbitration Petition no. 437/2018 under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟) making the following prayers:-
“i. Appoint a sole arbitrator as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 pursuant to Clause 21 of the Agreement dated 26.04.2004 entered into between the parties;
ii. Direct that the dispute as to whether or not the Award dated 20.11.2014 as passed by the Chairman is an Arbitration Award or settles all disputes or waives the right to arbitrate, be decided as the preliminary issue
iii. Stay the purported arbitral proceedings fixed by the purported arbitrator Ms Sheila Sangwan fixed for
31.5.2018 during the pendency of the present petition;”
-
The petitioner simultaneously filed OMP (T) (COMM) 45/2018 under Section 14 read with Section 12 of the Act making the following prayers:
“(
-
Declare that the mandate of the purported Arbitrator Ms. Sheila Sangwan stands terminated; or
(b) Terminate the mandate of the purported Arbitrator Ms. Sheila Sangwan;
(c) Stay the purported arbitral proceedings fixed by the purported arbitrator Ms Sheila Sangwan fixed for
31.5.2018 during the pendency of the present petition;”
-
-
The disputes between the parties are in relation to the Agreement dated 16.02.2005 executed between them whereby the petitioner appointed by the respondent as a Strategic Alliance Management Operator (SAMO) for equipping, marketing, operation and maintenance of its Inland Container Depot at Loni, Ghaziabad. The said Agreement contains an Arbitration Agreement in form of Clauses 20 and 21 thereof, which are reproduced hereinbelow:-
"20.0. A Joint Committee with equal number of representatives (those not directly involved in the day to day business operations of either party at the Facility)
from CWC and the World's Window shall be constituted for the administration of the Management Contract. Any disputes arising out of the implementation of the contract this shall be looked into by this committee for resolution.
The Joint Committee comprising three authorized representatives including Regional manager of Central Warehousing Corporation and equal number of authorized representatives of the World's Window concerned shall be authorised, after going into all pros and cons without jeopardising the financial interest of CWC, as contained in the agreement, to amend the terms and conditions for smooth and hassle free operation so long as the overall structure of the contract does not change.
21.0 It is understood by both the parties that any dispute arising out of this Contract, not resolved by the Joint Committee , shall be referred to an Advisory Committee to be jointly appointed by the parties.
In case the parties fail to arrive at any satisfactory resolution, the dispute arising out of any matter relating to this contract shall be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is also a term of this contract that no person other than a person appointed by MD, Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi should act as an arbitrator. "
-
Disputes having arisen between the parties, the respondent vide its letter and order dated 04.01.2016 appointed Mrs.Sheila Sangwan, Member, CBEC as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the said disputes.
-
The petitioner, claiming that the disputes had already been adjudicated and an Award dated 20.11.2014 had been passed by Chairman of the respondent adjudicating such disputes and therefore, another arbitration proceeding was not maintainable, filed a Civil
being CS No. 120/2016 before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad making the following prayers:-
“a. Pass a decree of permanent injunction till the currency of agreement in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant restraining the Defendant from acting upon the letters dated 24.11.2015, 3.02.2016 or any such similar letter or action of the Defendant;
-
Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of Plaintiff and against Defendant thereby restraining the Defendant from taking any coercive steps qua the agreement dated 16.02.2005, till the currency of the said Agreement including initiation of any proceedings against the plaintiff company;
-
Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff company and against the Defendant thereby restraining the Defendant from raising any fresh demand contrary to the terms of the Contract from the Plaintiff company;
-
Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff company and against the defendant thereby restraining the Defendant from interfering with the smooth functioning of the business by the Plaintiff company at the facility i.e. ICD, Loni, including but not limited to the interference by the defendant through any other agency and/or departments.”
-
-
In the said suit, the respondent entered appearance on 18.02.2016 and undertook not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. respondent thereafter, filed an application under Section 8 of the seeking reference of the disputes to arbitration. The respondent also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 seeking vacation of the interim order passed by the Court. Both the said applications were dismissed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad vide two separate orders dated 15.03.2016.
-
The respondent being aggrieved by the above orders filed appeals being Appeal nos. 135/2016 and 136/2016 before the Court District Judge, Ghaziabad. The said appeals were allowed by the District Judge, Ghaziabad vide his order dated 24.02.2018.
-
It was now the turn of the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the District Judge, Ghaziabad before the...
To continue reading
Request your trial