IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

ORIGINAL ORDINARY JURISDICTION

ARBITRATION PETITION NO ____ OF 2020
IN THE MATTER OF:

SH. SANJAY THAKUR ...PETITIONER

VERSUS

SH. TILAK RAJ ARYA & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS

BRIEF SYNOPSIS

Sh. Inderjeet Singh and Sh. Sanjay Singh (Respondents 2 & 3

herein) were the owners of Property no C-68, Freedom Fighter

Enclave, Neb Sarai, New Delhi 110068 (Said Property hereafter).

They approached the Petitioner Sh. Sanjay Thakur and Sh. Tilak

Raj Arya (Respondent 1 herein) for the construction of a building in

the Said Property.

The parties entered into a collaboration agreement on 03.03.2014

for construction of a building on the Said Property. In this

agreement the owners Sh. Inderjeet Singh and Sh. Sanjay Singh

are collectively called as First Party. Similarly, the builders Sh.

Sanjay Thakur and Sh. Tilak Raj Arya are collectively called as

Second Party.

Serious Disputes arose between Tilak Raj Arya (Respondent 1) &

Sanjay Thakur. Pursuant a suit was filed by Third Party whereby

Tilak Raj Arya sold the Property of Sanjay Thakur by forging

documents (NOC).

The conflicting claims are also reflected in the written statement by

the Petitioner and Respondent 1 in response to a suit filed by Sh.

Sanjay Mann claiming to be a vendee from Respondent 1 upon

this knowledge a Police complaint was filed by Sanjay Thakur

about it.

Respondents 2 and 3 by notice dated 23.07.2020, through their

Counsel raised certain disputes between the parties and appointed

Ms. Aditi Sharma, Advocate C/o B- 11, UGF, Kailash colony, New

Delhi as the First Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and

differences between the parties.

The builders were required to appoint an Arbitrator within 30 days

from the receipt of this notice.

In this case:
(a). Sh. Tilak Raj Arya has appointed Sh.Manjeet Singh as an

Arbitrator for the ‘Second Party’.

(b). Sh. Sanjay Thakur has appointed Sh. Rakesh Kumar Garg as

an Arbitrator for the ‘Second Party’.

Strangely, Respondents 4 the Arbitrator appointed by the

Respondents 2 & 3 took upon herself to chose between the two

Arbitrators respectively nominated by the two constituents of

‘Second Party’ (i.e.) Petitioner and Respondent 1).

She has conveyed by her letter dated 03.10.2020 that the

Arbitrator nominated by Sh. Tilak Raj Arya shall be taken as the

Arbitrator nominated by the Builders. Obviously, the Arbitrator

appointed by First party cannot chose as to who shall be the

nominated Arbitrator of the opposite Party.

As stated the ‘builders’ are two persons namely Sh. Tilak Raj Arya

& Sanjay Thakur and have been collectively referred to as Second

Party in the agreement. The arbitration agreement requires that

“one arbitrator” is to be appointed by the “Second Party”. Thus, the

Arbitrator appointed by Sh.TilakRaj Arya is not the Arbitrator

Nominated by Second Party.

As stated, in view of the serious differences between the

constituents of the builders it is not possible for them to collectively

nominate an Arbitrator.

Thus, the procedure mentioned in the agreement has not been

followed and therefore the Petitioner approaches this Hon’ble

Court by way of the present petition.

Hence the present Petition.

PETITIONER

THROUGH

Alok Kumar, Yashvir Sethi

(D/120/76) (D/801/88)
Manisha Agrawal, Abhishek Paruthi &
(D/570/2006) (D/2197/2020)
Amit Kr. Singh (D/2427/13)
Advocates
KUMAR GARG & ASSOCIATES
W 99, Greater Kailash-I New Delhi 48
Ak1.alokkumar@gmail.com
paruthi.abhishek@gmail.com
Delhi
Dated: