Seema Jain & ANR. v. Anjali Labs Jmjk Private Limted & ORS.

$~1 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ ARB.P. 60/2024 SEEMA JAIN & ANR.

.....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Sushant Thakur, Adv.

versus ANJALI LABS JMJK PRIVATE LIMTED & ORS......Respondent Through:

Ms. Muskan Gupta, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 13.08.2024 I.A. 34860/2024 1.

This is an application seeking modification/rectification of the Order dated 14.05.2024.

2.

It is stated in the application that in view of Clause 13 of the Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") dated 10.08.2022, all previous MOUs were rendered void. Hence, there is only MOU dated 10.08.2022 under which a dispute can be referred to sole the Arbitrator for adjudication and not under the remaining three MOUs.

3.

The notice was issued and Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file a reply and has advanced oral arguments. 4.

He states that a perusal of the MOUs shows that the same are three separate agreements and are between three different parties. 5.

The first MOU dated 19.05.2021 is between Ms. Pooja Rani with Mr. Anand Kumar (First Party) and Ms. Seema Jain (Second Party). The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/08/2024 at 11:10:25

6.

The second MOU dated 25.06.2021 is between Anjali Labs JMJK Pvt. Ltd. (through its Directors Ms. Pooja Rani and Mr. Anand Kumar) and Ms. Seema Jain).

7.

The third MOU dated 09.08.2022 is between Ms. Pooja Rani, Ms. Seema Jain with Mr. Amrik Singh Bawa (First Party) and Mr. Abhishek and Atul Goel (Second Party).

8.

A perusal of the three MOUs shows that the party are different. 9.

Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for petitioner states that he has claims arising out of all three MOUs.

10.

Prima facie, a perusal of Clause 13 of the MOU dated 10.08.2022 also shows that it may be in reference to Clause 11 and 12 of the MOU dated 09.08.2022.

11.

The said issue can only be decided once the arbitrator has gone through the pleadings and evidence led by the parties. 12.

For the said reasons, there is no requirement of modification/clarification of the order.

13.

The application is dismissed.

JASMEET SINGH, J AUGUST 13, 2024/NG Click here to check corrigendum, if any The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/08/2024 at 11:10:25