High CourtsSingle Bench(2024) 11 DEL CK 2295

Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal vs Anoop Aggarwal

Delhi High Court · Decided on 8 November 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sachin Datta, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
ARB.P. 403/2022

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 271 words

SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)

IA No.44422/2024 (filed on behalf of petitioner for directions)

1.

This is an application seeking substitution of the Sole Arbitrator appointed by this Court vide order dated 18.09.2024 in ARB. (P) 403/2022.

2.

This application is occasioned on account of the fact that the learned Sole Arbitrator has recused himself from the matter.

3.

In terms of the judgments rendered in Ramjee Power Construction Ltd v. Damodar Valley Corporation, MANU/WB/1306/2009 and Tirath Ram Sumer Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar Mishra and Ors. MANU/UP/0190/2017, it is incumbent upon this Court to appoint a substitute Sole Arbitrator.

4.

Accordingly, Mr. Justice (Retd.) Pradeep Nandrajog, Former Chief Justice, Bombay High Court (Mobile No.:9818000130) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

5.

The learned Sole Arbitrator may proceed with arbitration proceedings subject to furnishing to the parties, requisite disclosures as required under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act; and in the event of there being any impediment to the appointment on that count, the parties are given liberty to file an appropriate application in this Court.

6.

As already agreed between the parties, the arbitration shall continue to take place under the aegis of the DIAC.

7.

All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the claims/counter-claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Arbitrator on their merits, in accordance with law.

8.

Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the contentions of the parties.

9.

The present application stands disposed of in above terms.