Digital Radio (Delhi) Broadcasting LTD. vs. Delhi Tourism And Transportation Development Corporation LTD.

Facts

The Petitioner, Digital Radio (Delhi) Broadcasting Ltd., filed a petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator. Disputes arose between the Petitioner and the Respondent, Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd., concerning payment for services rendered under an Agreement dated 04.08.2022. The Petitioner claimed an amount of Rs. 2,83,20,000/-, which included GST, and sent a legal notice on 26.09.2024 demanding this payment. As payment was not forthcoming, the Petitioner invoked arbitration by sending a notice on 15.11.2024. The Respondent filed a reply, disputing the existence of an arbitration clause, although no specific contention regarding the arbitration clause was raised in the reply itself.

Held

The Court held that since disputes have arisen between the parties, it was inclined to appoint a Sole Arbitrator. The Court appointed Mr. Shashank Garg, Senior Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes. The arbitration proceedings will be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and will be governed by its rules and regulations. The Arbitrator is entitled to fees as per DIAC's schedule and is required to file a disclosure under Section 12(2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act within two weeks of entering the reference. All rights and contentions of the parties regarding claims and counter-claims are kept open to be decided by the Arbitrator on their merits. The Court explicitly stated that it was not commenting on the contentions raised by the Respondent regarding the arbitrability of the disputes or on the merits of the parties' contentions.

Key Issues

1. Whether an Arbitrator should be appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties, considering the Petitioner's claim for payment and the Respondent's dispute regarding the existence of an arbitration clause. The Petitioner argued that disputes have arisen concerning payment for services rendered, a legal notice demanding payment was issued, and arbitration was invoked as per the agreement. The Petitioner sought the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve these disputes. The Respondent, while filing a reply, disputed the existence of an arbitration clause, though this contention was not explicitly detailed in the reply. The Court noted that the Respondent's counsel stated that an unsigned copy of the Arbitration Agreement was filed and that the Respondent disputes the existence of an Arbitration Clause.