High CourtsSingle Bench

TATA Consultancy Services Limited vs Kings Canyon Sez Pvt Ltd

Delhi High Court · Decided on 9 July 2021 · Citation: (2021) 07 DEL CK 0060

HON’BLE JUDGES
C.Hari Shankar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9, 12(2), 17
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Original Miscellaneous Petition (I) (COMM.) No. 199, 206 Of 2021, Miscellaneous Application No. 7614, 7730 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 334 words

C.Hari Shankar, J

O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 206/2021 & O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 199/2021

1.

Interlinked issues are involved in these two petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. After some hearing, learned

Senior Counsel for the parties submit that, given the intricate nature of the issues, and given the fact that M/s Tata Consultancy Services Limited has

suggested names of three learned arbitrators, out of whom M/s Kings Canyon SEZ Pvt. Ltd., is agreeable to arbitration of the disputes by Hon’ble

Mr. Justice Baddar Durrez Ahmed, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, who has also adorned the Bench of this Court,

both these petitions could be disposed of by referring the disputes to the said learned arbitrator, to be treated as applications under Section 17 of the

1996 Act.

2.

The suggestion is wholesome and merits acceptance.

3.

In view thereof, without expressing any opinion, one way or the other, on the issues involved in these petitions, this Court disposes of both these

petitions, by appointing Hon’ble Mr. Justice Baddar Durrez Ahmad as the arbitrator, to arbitrate on the disputes between the parties. The learned

Arbitrator is requested to submit his disclosure under Section 12(2) of the 1996 Act, within a week of entering on reference. The learned Arbitrator is

also requested to decide these petitions under Section 9 of the 1996 Act, treating them as applications under Section 17, for which purpose learned

Counsel for the parties are at liberty to present these petitions before the learned Arbitrator, for hearing and disposal thereof.

4.

Since the controversy involves fire safety in the premises in question, the learned Arbitrator is requested to hear and dispose of these petitions, as

expeditiously as possible.

5.

In view of the aforesaid, both these petitions stand disposed of. All applications filed in these petitions also stand disposed of accordingly.

6.

The Registry is directed to upload and e-mail a copy of this order to learned Counsel for the parties within 24 hours.