Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd v. Eta Engineering Private Ltd.

$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 365/2018 SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA PVT. LTD ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Amit Kumar Mishra with Ms.

Etisha Srivastav and Mr. Mohit Singh, Advs.

versus ETA ENGINEERING PRIVATE LTD.

..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Sohel Rishabh, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R D E R

% 01.08.2018 1.

The substantive prayers made in the captioned petition are as follows: "(a) The Hon'ble High Court be pleased to constitute the arbitral tribunal, consisting of three arbitrators, in accordance with the procedure envisaged under the arbitration clause i.e. 46 of the LOA;

(b) Award costs of this Petition; and"

2.

Learned counsel for the respondent has returned with the instructions to the effect that he has no objection if the prayers made in the petition are allowed.

3.

To be noted, the petitioner seeks appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal in consonance with arbitration clause 46 of the Letter of Award ('LOA'). Clause 46 is contained in LOA dated 7.9.2012.

4.

Consequently, counsel for the petitioner, it appears, had indicated that the petitioner's nominee would be Justice K.K. Lahoti, a former Judge of ARB.P. No.365/2018 Pg.1 of 2

Madhya Pradesh High Court, while the learned counsel for the respondent has indicated that the respondent's nominee would be Justice J.K. Mehra, a former Judge of this Court.

5.

Clause 46 requires the parties to choose their respective nominee arbitrators, who would in turn are required to appoint the presiding arbitrator. 5.1 Since, the prayer made in the petition is in terms of clause 46 of the LOA dated 7.9.2012, the learned Arbitrator will do the needful at the earliest. 6.

The petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J AUGUST 01, 2018/pmc ARB.P. No.365/2018 Pg.2 of 2