ATC TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. vs M/S BD SECURITY PVT. LTD.
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 04.12.2023
+ FAO(COMM) 249/2023 & CM Appl. 62507-511//2023
ATC TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ….. Appellant
Through: Mr Arjun Mahajan with Mr Sumit R Sharma, Mr Raghvendra N Budholia, Mr Piyush Gautam and Ms Arpana, Advs.
versus
M/S BD SECURITY PVT. LTD. …… Respondent
Through: Mr J. Shivam Kumar and Mr Dhiliban Veradarjan, Advs.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial-03), Patiala House, New Delhi in an application preferred by the respondent under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [in short, Act].
2. We may note that the matter was passed over at request of the counsel for the parties to obtain necessary instructions as to whether the appeal could be disposed of on terms referred to hereafter . The counsel have obtained instructions from their respective clients.
3. We may note that the disputes between the parties are rooted in two agreements i.e., Surveillance Agreement dated 05.10.2021 and Operation and Management Agreement dated 23.06.2020.
2. In the course of proceedings, counsel for the parties agreed, as indicated above, that the instant appeal could be disposed of based on the following directions:
(i) That the operative directions contained in the impugned order dated 09.11.2023 requiring the appellant to deposit Rs.18 lakhs with the concerned court be supplanted with directions requiring the appellant to file an affidavit, which would, inter alia, state that in case any decision is taken to sell, lease or create a charge on its assets located in Delhi, prior permission of the concerned arbitration tribunal would be taken.
(i)(a) In this regard, counsel for the appellant affirms that the appellants assets are located in Delhi and, presently, are worth more than Rs.18 lakhs.
(ii) To hasten the adjudication of the entirety of the disputes obtaining between the parties, an arbitrator be appointed by the court.
( iii) The directions issued qua the assets, as indicated in paragraph 2 (i) above, will not come in the way of the appellants day-to-day operations.
3. It is ordered accordingly .
3.1 In terms of the conditions agreed to by the counsel for the parties, Honble Mr Justice R K Gauba, former Judge of this court, is appointed as an arbitrator in the matter.
3.2 Learned arbitrator will be paid fees as per the provisions of the Fourth Schedule appended to the Act.
3.3 Before the learned Arbitrator proceeds, he will make necessary disclosures. as required under Section 12 read with the Sixth Schedule of the Act.
3.3 Counsel for the parties will appear before the learned arbitrator in the first instance after obtaining direction in this regard from him.
4. The appeal is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. The effect of this disposal would be that the appellant would not be required to deposit Rs.18 lakhs in the manner prescribed by the impugned order.
5. Pending applications shall stand closed.
6. The parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J
DECEMBER 4, 2023
pmc
FAO(COMM)No.249/2023 Page 1 of 3