Cloud Nine Groups vs.uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Cloud Nine Groups vs Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jan 30, 2019

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1220975

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1220975
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Jan 30, 2019
Subject: Arbitration

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Arbitration

Key legal issue: Arbitration

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cloud Nine Groups

Advocate Mr. Mullapudi Rambabu, Ms. Vijayshree Pattnaik, Mr. N. E. Rao, Mr. Nikhil A. Menon

Respondent

Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Excerpt

.....systems pvt. ltd. through mr. nikhil a. menon, adv. ..... respondent page 1 of 3 coram: hon'ble mr. justice rajiv shakdher rajiv shakdher, j.(oral) 1. these captioned petitions have been filed under section 11(6) of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 (in short ‘1996 act’) for appointment of an arbitrator.2. notice in these petitions was issued on 6.8.2018. 2.1 on the returnable date i.e. 8.10.2008, mr. menon entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. 2.2 learned counsel, on that date, was given three (3) weeks to file a reply. 2.3 no reply has been filed despite an opportunity being given to the respondent in that behalf.3. mr. menon, however, says that he would have no objection in this court appointing a sole independent arbitrator who would then proceed to adjudicate the disputes obtaining between the parties.4. furthermore, mr. menon says that the parties may be given an opportunity to arrive at a mediated settlement before the arbitrator enters upon reference. 4.1 ms. pattnaik, who appears for the petitioner submits likewise.5. accordingly, the captioned petitions are disposed of with the following directions: (i) mr. justice k. ramamoorthy, former judge, delhi high court (cell no:9810529889), is appointed as an arbitrator in the matter. arb.p. 559/2018 & conn. page 2 of 3 (ii) the learned arbitrator will be paid his fee as per the provisions of the fourth schedule appended to the 1996 act. (iii) the learned arbitrator will not enter upon reference till 31.3.2019. (iv) in the interregnum, the parties and their counsel will appear before the mediator appointed by the delhi high court mediation and conciliation centre (for short ‘centre’) on 1.2.2019 at 3:00 p.m. (v) in case further time is required to arrive at a mediated settlement, the parties and/or their counsel will jointly approach the arbitrator, who will then extend the time if he deems fit, based on a joint written request of the parties and/or their respective counsel.6. dasti.....

Full Judgment

$~2 to 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:

30. 1.2019 + ARB.P. 559/2018 CLOUD NINE GROUPS ........ Petitioner

Through: Mr. Mullapudi Rambabu, Ms. Vijayshree Pattnaik and Mr. N. E. Rao, Advs. AND + AND + versus UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. Through Mr. Nikhil A. Menon, Adv. ..... Respondent ARB.P. 560/2018 CLOUD NINE GROUPS ........ Petitioner

Through: Mr. Mullapudi Rambabu, Ms. Vijayshree Pattnaik and Mr. N. E. Rao, Advs. versus UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. Through Mr. Nikhil A. Menon, Adv. ..... Respondent ARB.P. 561/2018 CLOUD NINE GROUPS ........ Petitioner

Through: Mr. Mullapudi Rambabu, Ms. Vijayshree Pattnaik and Mr. N. E. Rao, Advs. versus ARB.P. 559/2018 & Conn. UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. Through Mr. Nikhil A. Menon, Adv. ..... Respondent Page 1 of 3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.

(ORAL) 1. These captioned petitions have been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short ‘1996 Act’) for appointment of an Arbitrator.

2. Notice in these petitions was issued on 6.8.2018. 2.1 On the returnable date i.e. 8.10.2008, Mr. Menon entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. 2.2 Learned counsel, on that date, was given three (3) weeks to file a reply. 2.3 No reply has been filed despite an opportunity being given to the respondent in that behalf.

3. Mr. Menon, however, says that he would have no objection in this Court appointing a sole independent Arbitrator who would then proceed to adjudicate the disputes obtaining between the parties.

4. Furthermore, Mr. Menon says that the parties may be given an opportunity to arrive at a mediated settlement before the Arbitrator enters upon reference. 4.1 Ms. Pattnaik, who appears for the petitioner submits likewise.

5. Accordingly, the captioned petitions are disposed of with the following directions: (i) Mr. Justice K. Ramamoorthy, former Judge, Delhi High Court (Cell no:9810529889), is appointed as an Arbitrator in the matter. ARB.P. 559/2018 & Conn. Page 2 of 3 (ii) The learned Arbitrator will be paid his fee as per the provisions of the Fourth Schedule appended to the 1996 Act. (iii) The learned Arbitrator will not enter upon reference till 31.3.2019. (iv) In the interregnum, the parties and their counsel will appear before the Mediator appointed by the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre (for short ‘Centre’) on 1.2.2019 at 3:00 P.M. (v) In case further time is required to arrive at a mediated settlement, the parties and/or their counsel will jointly approach the Arbitrator, who will then extend the time if he deems fit, based on a joint written request of the parties and/or their respective counsel.

6. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master. JANUARY30 2019 rb ARB.P. 559/2018 & Conn. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J Page 3 of 3

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2019 Same Parties Cloud Nine Groups vs Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. Same Subject Arbitration