Nisha Rani Aggarwal Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Nisha Rani Aggarwal vs Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jan 11, 2002

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/680281

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/680281
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: J.D. Kapoor, J.
Decided On: Jan 11, 2002
Case Number: AA No. 40/98
Subject: Arbitration

Case Summary

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

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11--Appointment of arbitrator--Notice sent to applicant--Could not be served as the applicant temporarily shifted without any information to the respondent--Applicant was a household lady--Not aware of his legal duty to inform the court or the arbitrator about hi...

Key legal issue: Arbitration
Acts & sections: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 11; Limitation Act

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Nisha Rani Aggarwal

Advocate R.K. Sharma, Adv

Respondent

Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Advocate Manish Goyal, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 11; Limitation Act
Reported In: 2002IIAD(Delhi)858; 2002(2)ARBLR471(Delhi); 96(2002)DLT557; 2002(62)DRJ147

Excerpt

.....the court or the arbitrator about her change of address. non-compliance of such a formality cannot or ought not be allowed to forfeit the right of the party to be heard before any adverse order or action is taken. one cannot be oblivious of the fact that the applicant being household lady was under bereavement because of untimely death of her husband. provisions of limitation act are not strictly applicable to arbitration proceedings and for that purpose for invocation of arbitration clause unless specific period is stipulated in the agreement. even in that case, there is no rule of thumb. every case has to be adjudged in the face of its facts. facts of the case are guiding factors. - section 13: [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph,jj] custody of child - welfare of child vis--vis comity of courts - the minor girl child of 3 1/2 years was brought to india by her mother. the minor girl was a citizen of u.k. being born in u.k. her parents had set up their matrimonial home in u.k. and had acquired status of permanent residents of u.k. the child with her mother was supposed to return to u.k. but the mother cancelled her tickets and remained behind in india. the husband thereupon started procededings before the high court of justice, family division. u.k. praying for an order that the minor child be made a ward of the court and for a direction upon the wife to return the minor child to the jurisdiction of the said court. a further direction was given for the passport and other international travel documents of the minor child to be handed over to the solicitors of the husband. a petition seeking protection of minor child was thereupon filed by father of the husband before delhi high court. a direction for handing over custody of child to father of husband was also sought. the high court considering fact that the u.k. court was already in seisin of matter and had passed an interim order and by relying on principle of comity of nations and comity of judgments of the..........she is expected to know the legal provision or requirement that he or she has to inform the court or the arbitrator about her change of address. non-compliance of such a formality cannot or ought not be allowed to forfeit the right of the party to be heard before any adverse order or action is taken. one cannot be oblivious of the fact that the applicant being household lady was under bereavement because of untimely death of her husband. provisions of limitation act are not strictly applicable to arbitration proceedings and forthat purpose for invocation of arbitration clause unless specific period is stipulated in the agreement. even in that case, there is no rule of thumb. every case has tobe adjudged in the face of its facts. facts of the case are guiding factors.6. it is not a case where the applicant has not invoked clause 25 of the agreement for six/seven years. arbitrator was appointed on her request in 1991. the arbitrator declined to entertain her request for being made l.r. of the deceased contractor on the plea that he has already returned the file to the dda for want of service of notice. it is not again a case where she remained inactive and did not take any action. she again approached the dda for appointment of arbitrator but therespondent-dda declined her request vide letter dated 15.2.1996.7. taking overall view of the facts and keeping in view the interests of justice, there is no perceptible ground to decline the application. the application is allowed. respondent no. 1-dda is directed to appoint an arbitrator within six weeks.8. however, the objection of the respondent-dda that applicant shall not be entitled for interest during the period when she did not inform the arbitrator about her changed address, shall be decided by the arbitrator while making the award.9. petitioner is disposed of accordingly. copy of this order be sent to the respondent-dda forthwith.

Full Judgment

J.D. Kapoor, J.

1. This is an application under Section 11 ofthe Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointmentof an Arbitrator.

2. The petitioner is the widow of late Sh. Satish Kumar Aggarwal. Late Sh. Satish Kumar Aggarwal had entered into the contract for the work 'C/o 72 nos.Cat.III DUS. 48 Nos.Cat.II DUS and 72 Nos. S/g bldg.work/i/x/int.W/S&S;/I etc. complete' with respondent No. 1. Certain disputes arose out of the said contract which were to be settled in accordance with Clause 25 of the agreement i.e. Arbitration clause. On the letter of the petitioner, One Sh.S.C. Kaushal was appointed as Arbitrator.

3. Notice was sent to the applicant at the old address where she had been residing when her husband was alive but could not be served as she temporarily shifted to Chandigarh after the death of her husband. When she approached the Arbitrator for being made legal heir of her deceased husband, the Arbitrator informed her that he had already returned the file to the DDA. On this, the applicant moved DDA with a request that a new Arbitrator be appointed but her request was declined vide letterdated 15.2.1996. Feeling aggrieved, she moved the instant application.

4. It appears that the applicant did not inform the Arbitrator about her change of address and the Arbitrator sent notice at the old address. Being a household lady, she may not be aware of the legal obligation that it is the duty of the party to inform the court or the Arbitrator about his/her change of address so that communication is received by the party concerned. But such inaction on the part of the petitioner/applicant cannot operate adversely against her or to her detriment.

5. Merely because a party much less a housewife sends a notices does not mean that he or she is expected to know the legal provision or requirement that he or she has to inform the court or the Arbitrator about her change of address. Non-compliance of such a formality cannot or ought not be allowed to forfeit the right of the party to be heard before any adverse order or action is taken. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that the applicant being household lady was under bereavement because of untimely death of her husband. Provisions of Limitation Act are not strictly applicable to arbitration proceedings and forthat purpose for invocation of arbitration clause unless specific period is stipulated in the agreement. Even in that case, there is no rule of thumb. Every case has tobe adjudged in the face of its facts. Facts of the case are guiding factors.

6. It is not a case where the applicant has not invoked Clause 25 of the agreement for six/seven years. Arbitrator was appointed on her request in 1991. The Arbitrator declined to entertain her request for being made L.R. of the deceased contractor on the plea that he has already returned the file to the DDA for want of service of notice. It is not again a case where she remained inactive and did not take any action. She again approached the DDA for appointment of Arbitrator but therespondent-DDA declined her request vide letter dated 15.2.1996.

7. Taking overall view of the facts and keeping in view the interests of justice, there is no perceptible ground to decline the application. The application is allowed. Respondent No. 1-DDA is directed to appoint an Arbitrator within six weeks.

8. However, the objection of the respondent-DDA that applicant shall not be entitled for interest during the period when she did not inform the Arbitrator about her changed address, shall be decided by the Arbitrator while making the award.

9. Petitioner is disposed of accordingly. Copy of this order be sent to the respondent-DDA forthwith.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2002 Same Parties Nisha Rani Aggarwal vs Delhi Development Authority and anr. Same Subject Arbitration Same Judge J.D. Kapoor, J. Acts & Sections Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 11; Limitat...

Arbitration