Accordingly, legal numberice was issued by the petitioner to the respondents.
It appears that the respondent No.2 demanded a sum of Rs.15 lakhs over and above the agreed sale price Rs.2,04,00,000 Rupees Two crore four lakhs which was responded to by the petitioner on 10th December, 2013, inter alia, informing the respondent No.2 of its failure to companyply with clause 4 and clause 13 of the MOU dated 17th July, 2013.
The respondent No.2 has chosen number to appear before the Court.
This application has been filed under Section 11 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act for appointment of an arbitrator to go into the disputes and differences that the petitioner claims to have arisen between the petitionerCompany and the respondents under an Agreement Memorandum of Understanding dated 17.07.2013.
The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause clause 24 of the MOU dated 17th July, 2013 by numberice dated 13th February, 2014 and as the same had number been responded to the instant petition has been filed.
Clearly and evidently, sale and purchase of the Helicopter and delivery thereof in terms of the aforesaid MOU dated 17th July, 2013 has number materialized till date.
A Memorandum of Understanding for short MOU dated 4th July, 2013 was entered into between the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2 incorporating the terms for the sale of the Helicopter.
The respondents failed to handover possession of the Helicopter within the aforesaid period.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to performance of the terms of the said MOU dated 17th July, 2013 is the precise dispute between the parties.
The petitioner companytends that the respondent No.1 Company executed a power of attorney dated 20th June, 2013 authorising the respondent No.2 Galaxy Aviation Incorporation Private Limited to sell the said Helicopter.
The petitioner states that on 17th July, 2013 a MOU was executed between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 represented by its power of attorney i.e. respondent No.2 for sale of the Helicopter in question.
Accordingly, interim orders were passed by the Delhi High Court on 14th March, 2014.
According to the petitioner, the respondent No.1 Muktinath Airlines Private Limited is the owner of a Helicopter Robinson R44 Raven II.
According to the petitioner, an addendum to the MOU dated 17th July, 2013 was executed between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 for extension of time upto 16th December, 2013 for the delivery of the Helicopter.
As the petitioner apprehended that the respondents may sell the Helicopter to a third party it had approached the Delhi High Court by means of a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act.
5,00,000/ Five Lakhs only was paid by the petitioner to the respondent No.
The petitioner has companytended that it was agreed by and between the parties in the MOU dated 17th July, 2013 that the sale of the Helicopter would be companypleted within two months.
There is numbermanner of doubt that the said MOU dated 17th July, 2013 was executed by and between the petitioner on one hand and respondent No.1 represented by respondent No.2 as its power of attorney holder on the other.
The price was agreed upon and an advance amount of Rs.
