Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) to challenge an award dated 04-04-2023 passed by the Sole Arbitrator appointed by Respondent 2, a Single Judge Bench of Pratibha M. Singh, J. held that the petitioner had no locus to file a petition under Section 34, and the same was not maintainable as the petitioner was not a party to the arbitral proceedings.
Background
Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (‘Jindal’) (Respondent 1) had filed a complaint regarding the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (‘INDRP’) and the INDRP Rules of Procedure, adopted by the National Internet Exchange of India (‘NIXI’).
The dispute between Jindal and respondent 3 concerned the domain name: ‘jsplsteel.in’. Upon receipt of the complaint, NIXI issued a notice dated 08-02-2023 to respondent 3 to which a reply was filed by respondent 3 and the matter was heard by the Sole Arbitrator. Finally, vide the impugned award, the Sole Arbitrator directed the transfer of the domain name to Jindal.
The Petitioner contended that he was the beneficial owner of the impugned domain name and the award had been passed without hearing him, which was a breach of the principles of natural justice.
Jindal submitted that the reply filed by respondent 3 was filed in coordination with the petitioner as was evident from the email dated 22-03-2023. It was also submitted that the petitioner was fully aware of the proceedings but chose not to appear before the Sole Arbitrator.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that certain companies and individuals may engage a professional entity for registering domain names and hosting websites. However, the Court said that if such service providers list themselves as the Registrants of the domain names and the beneficial owner is not reflected as the Registrant, no notice is expected to be issued to such a third party, since they would be unknown persons/entities under the INDRP.
Further, the Court stated that any third party who may claim an interest in the domain name, without being bound by the INDRP, cannot allege that the award had been rendered in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the policy does not require third parties to be heard. The Court stated that the INDRP binds only the registrant, registrar, and complainant.
The Court stated that once a decision has been issued by a panel under INDRP and if the complaint has succeeded, the complainant is entitled to seek enforcement of the award as well.
The Court noted that it was not the petitioner but respondent 3 whose name reflected as the registrant of the said domain name on the WHOIS database. The Court stated that if the service provider had informed the petitioner, the petitioner ought to have sought impleadment in the INDRP proceeding, which he did not.
The Court stated that neither NIXI nor the panelist could be faulted for not issuing notice to the petitioner because the domain owner was respondent 3 and not the petitioner. Thus, the Court stated that the petitioner would not have the locus to file a petition under Section 34 of the Act since it was not a party to the arbitral proceedings.
The Court referred to Mukesh Nanji Gala v. Heritage Enterprises 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 1817 wherein it was held that only parties to an arbitration agreement can exercise rights and invoke arbitration for dispute adjudication, not outsiders. Reference was also made to Tara Logitech Pvt. Ltd. v. Religare Finvest Ltd. 2014 SCC OnLine Del 7528.
Thus, while disposing of the petition, the Court held that considering the settled legal position, the petition under Section 34 of the Act was not maintainable.
[Mukesh Udeshi v. Jindal Steel Power Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4564, Decided on 02-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner — Advocate Hrishikesh Chitaley
For Respondent — Sr. Advocate Gopal Jain, Advocate Gauri Rasgotra, Advocate B. Arutsivan, Advocate Sharad Kumar Sunny, Advocate Priyashree Sharma, Advocate Shruti Joshi, Advocate Aniket Kumar Singh, Advocate Gunav Gujral, Advocate Keshav Mann, Advocate Ajay Gupta
Buy Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 HERE
