ARBAP/25/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 2084 UK

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                                  AT NAINITAL
                 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI


            ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 25 OF 2023

                             04TH AUGUST, 2023

BETWEEN:
Patanjali Ayurved Ltd.                                          .....Applicant.
And

Adarsha Swadeshi Bastu Vandar Pvt. Ltd.                         ....Respondent.

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Ashutosh Thakral, learned counsel.

Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Prasanna Kumar Parhi and Ms. Neeti Rana, learned counsels.

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)

No reply has been filed by the respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the

reply is ready.

3. Let the same be filed in the Registry during the

course of the day.

4. I have inquired from learned counsel for the

respondent as to what is the stand of the respondent.

Learned counsel submits that the respondent has no

objection to the appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate

the disputes which have arisen between the parties under the

Super Distributor Agreement dated 02.01.2012. However, the

Arbitrator may be appointed, either from Orissa, or from

Delhi considering the fact that the respondent is situated in

Orissa.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has no objection

to the appointment of an Arbitrator by this Court, who is

stationed at Delhi.

6. Accordingly, I proceed to dispose of this

application.

7. The case of the applicant is that the parties entered

into the Super Distributor Agreement dated 02.01.2012,

where-under the respondent was appointed as the Super

Distributor by the applicant for distribution of its products.

The said agreement contains an arbitration clause, which

states that "all disputes will be settled through arbitrator

appointed by PAL in Haridwar". PAL means Patanjali Ayurved

Limited, which is the applicant. However, the applicant cannot

appoint as an Arbitrator in its own cause, and consequently,

the applicant invoked the arbitration agreement on

12.03.2022, suggesting the name of three persons, one of

whom could be appointed as an Arbitrator. The respondent,

however, did not revert by consenting to one of the names

suggested by the applicant.

8. The arbitration application filed by the respondent

before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, being Arbitration

Petition No.27 of 2022, was disposed of on the ground of lack

of territorial jurisdiction. It is, therefore, clear that the parties

entered into the aforesaid agreement, which contains an

arbitration clause, where-under disputes under the Super

Distribution Agreement dated 02.01.2012 are required to be

resolved.

9. Accordingly, this application is allowed, and I

appoint Ms. Justice Mukta Gupta, Retd. Judge, High Court of

Delhi, (Mobile No. 9650788600), to act as the sole Arbitrator

to adjudicate the disputes between the parties, under the

aforesaid Agreement/ Contract.

10. The present application stands disposed of in the

aforesaid terms.

11. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)

Dated: 04th August, 2023 NISHANT