Court Appoints Sole Arbitrator to Resolve Contentions Between Abhinav Shukla and M/s Great Rocksport Pvt. Ltd.
In a significant move to uphold the principles of arbitration, the Delhi High Court has ordered the appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from the Influencer Agreement dated January 22, 2023, between Abhinav Shukla and M/s Great Rocksport Pvt. Ltd. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar presided over the proceedings, highlighting the court's role in facilitating arbitration without delving into contentious factual or legal issues.
The dispute resolution clause in the agreement stipulated that any disagreements related to its terms should be settled through arbitration, following mutual discussions. Both parties agreed to appoint a sole arbitrator after failing to resolve the matter amicably. This decision aligns with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, emphasizing minimal judicial interference and the autonomy of arbitral proceedings.
The court's directive was influenced by prior Supreme Court judgments, including SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning and Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, which clarified the limited scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Referral Court's duty is primarily to confirm the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, ensuring the parties adhere to their agreed dispute resolution mechanism.
Justice Shankar appointed Ms. Vijayata M. Bhalla as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes, with both parties consenting to share the arbitration costs equally. The arbitrator's fee will adhere to the Fourth Schedule of the Act, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties.
This judgment reinforces the judiciary's commitment to fostering arbitration, upholding the contractual intentions of the parties, and ensuring expedient resolution of disputes. By appointing an arbitrator, the court facilitates the continuation of arbitral proceedings without expressing opinions on the merits of the case, leaving substantive matters for the arbitrator to decide.
Bottom Line:
Arbitration - Referral Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is confined to prima facie examination of the existence of a valid Arbitration Agreement and cannot delve into contentious factual or legal issues, which are reserved for the Arbitral Tribunal.
Statutory provision(s): Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sections 11(6), 12(2)
Abhinav Shukla v. M/s Great Rocksport Pvt. Ltd, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2869653
