Delhi High Court
Marsons Electrical Industries vs Fedders Lloyd Corporation Ltd. on 21 September, 2017
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 21.09.2017
+ ARB.P. 466/2017
MARSONS ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES ..... Petitioner
versus
FEDDERS LLOYD CORPORATION LTD ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Thakur, Advocate with Mr. R.K. Mishra
and Mr. Rishi Raj, Advocates
For the Respondent : Mr. P.S. Bindra, Advocate with Ms. Rishika and
Ms. Savi Abbot, Advocates
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner by this petition under Section 11 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act') seeks appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes
between the parties.
2. As per the petitioner, the respondent approached the petitioner
for supply of transformers for the purposes of export.
3. Subsequent to negotiations, Purchase Order dated 15.11.2012
was issued for supply of 4964 number of transformers. The Purchase
Order dated 15.11.2012 was later split into 12 (twelve) different
Purchase Orders.
4. As per the petitioner, the respondent have, inter alia, short paid
the sale consideration, not passed on the duty draw back received
from the Custom Authorities caused towards repair etc.
5. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by notice dated
12.06.2017.
6. The arbitration clause as contained in the original Purchase
Order dated 15.11.2012 reads as under:-
"13.0 DISPUTES
13.1 Both the parties will attempt in good faith to
resolve by negotiations or mediation, any controversy or
claim regarding the rights and obligations under this
order or its breach. If they are unable to do so and
regardless of the causes of action alleged, the claim will
be resolved by arbitration in the territory of Delhi area,
before a single Arbitrator who is knowledgeable in area
of expertise required in this order and the appointment of
the arbitrator shall be on solely discretion of FLCL. The
arbitrator's award will be final and binding, and may be
entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. Each
party will bear its own attorney's fees and costs related
to the arbitration."
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the claims of
the petitioner are barred by time. However, without prejudice to the
said contentions to be raised before the Arbitral Tribunal, he has no
objection to an independent Sole Arbitrator being appointed.
8. Accordingly, with the consent of parties Mr. Justice Manmohan
Sarin, Former Chief Justice, High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
(Mobile No. 98180002210) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to
adjudicate the disputes between the parties emanating out of Purchase
Order dated 15.11.2012 and the consequent 12 (twelve) split purchase
orders.
9. This is subject to the Arbitrator making the necessary
disclosures under Section 12 of the Act of not being ineligible under
Section 12(5) of the Act.
10. The Arbitral Tribunal shall adjudicate the claims of the
petitioner and the counter claims, if any, of the respondents.
11. The Arbitrator shall fix his fee in consultation with the learned
counsel for the parties.
12. The parties are at liberty to approach the learned Arbitrator for
elucidating the necessary disclosures and for further proceedings.
13. It is clarified that this Court has neither examined nor
commented upon the issue of limitation raised by the learned counsel
for the respondent. The said issue is left open to be considered and
decided by the learned Arbitrator, if so raised.
14. Petition is accordingly disposed of.
15. Order Dasti under the signatures of Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
SEPTEMBER 21, 2017/nn
