DALE ROBERT BROWN  Vs VEDANTA LIMITED

O.M.P.(I) 7/2020 Page 1 of 4
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on 18th January, 2021
+ O.M.P.(I) 7/2020
DALE ROBERT BROWN ….. Petitioner
Through Mr. Gaurav Gupta and Mr.
Thakur Sumit, Advs.

versus

VEDANTA LIMITED ….. Respondent
Throu gh Mr. Srivastava, Adv.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C .HARI SHANKAR

(i) pass ex-parte ad-interim Order in favour of
Petitioner allowing Petitioner and/or his lawful
attorney to detain the Laptop which is presently in
custody and/or possession of Petition er/lawful
attorney, and shall have significant evidentiary value
to establish Petitioner’s claim in the course of J U D G E M E N T (ORAL)
% 18.01.2021

1. This is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “1996 Act”), seeking
certain pre -arbitral interim reliefs.

2. The p rayer clause, in this petition, read as under: –

“WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that till the
pendency and final disposal of the arbitral proceedings to be
initiated by Petitioner and enforcement of award passed
therein, this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

2021:DHC:204O.M.P.(I) 7/2020 Page 2 of 4
arbitration proceeding,

(ii) direct Respondent company to pay to Petitioner
the amounts admitted by Respondent company to be
payable, to the extent such amounts stand admitted in
the correspondence issued by Respondent company,

(iii) award cost of proceedings in favour of
Petitioner and against Respondent company, and/or
(iv) pass such other Order(s) which this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case. ”

3. During the course of arguments, Mr. Gaurav Gupta, learned
counsel for the petitioner , submits that he is restric ting his claims , in
this petition, to two prayers, viz., firstly, that the laptop, w hich was
given to the petitioner by the respondent, consequent on the petitioner
securing employment to the respondent and which is in the custody of
the Registrar General of this Court consequent to orders passed in
these proceedings, should be permitted to be retained with the
Registrar General and should not be returned to the respondent,
subject to the arbitral proceedings which have to take place between the parties and, secondly, that the respondent should be directed to
release, to the petitioner, am ounts which, according to the petitioner,
are admittedly due from the respondent, in particular for June and
July, 2020, being the last two months of the employment of the
petitioner with the respondent.

4. Mr. Srivastav , learned counsel for the respondent, states , on
instructions, that the payment due to the petitioner for the months of
June and July, 2020 would be handed over to the petitioner within a
2021:DHC:204O.M.P.(I) 7/2020 Page 3 of 4
period of one month from today.

5. Accordingly, reserving liberty to the petitioner to take up the
issue of any additional payment which , according to him, may be due
from the respondent in the arbitral proceedings, prayer (ii) in the
petition stands disposed of.

6. Apropos prayer (i) in the petition, though there was some debate
as to whether any direction , in respect of the laptop , could be pass ed
by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 9 of the 1996
Act, Mr. Srivistav, learned counsel for the respondent, fairly agrees to
retention of the laptop with the learned Registrar General of this
Court, during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings which are yet to
commence and subject to the orders, which may be passed in the said proceedings , by the learned Arbitral Tribunal.

7. The petitioner submits that he is more concern ed with th e
evidence contained in the laptop, rather than the laptop itself, as the
said evidence would be needed to establish and in order to support the
case of the petitioner in the arbitral proceedings. To a suggestion from
the Court, he submits that , in case any occasion to access the
information contained in the laptop arises during the arbitral
proceedings, the petitioner would move an appropriate application
before the learned Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 of the 1996 Act, whereupon the Arbitral Tribuna l would take a decision, after hearing
the respondent , as to whether to permit access to the laptop and any
material contained therein, for the petitioner to establish his case.
2021:DHC:204O.M.P.(I) 7/2020 Page 4 of 4

8. This Court has not examined the material in the laptop and does
not ventur e to return any finding regarding the necessity thereof, in
order for the petitioner to prove his case in arbitral proceedings.
Suffice it to state that petitioner would be at liberty to move an
appropriate application, under Section 17 of the 1996 Act, before the
Arbitral Tribunal, should the petitioner seek recourse to any materials
contained in the laptop, and it would be for the Arbitral Tribunal to take a decision thereon , after hearing the respondent in that regard .
Access, of the petitioner, to the laptop, which is presently in the
custody of the learned Registrar General, would, therefore, abide by the decision to be taken by the learned Arbitral Tribunal in that regard.

9. With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands disposed of.

Crl. M. A. 13301/2020

1. In view of the order passed in the petition, this application is
disposed of.

C.HARI SHANKAR, J
JANUARY 18, 2021
r.bararia

2021:DHC:204