ARBAP/16/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 2502 UK

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


            ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 16 OF 2023

                             25TH AUGUST, 2023

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

M/s Three Star Enterprise & another                            ....Respondents.

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Shobhit Jain, learned counsel.

Counsel for the Respondents                 :      Mr. D.N.     Sharma and Ms.
                                                   Gyanmati    Kushwaha, learned
                                                   counsels.

The Court made the following:

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

This application has been preferred by the applicant

under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996, to seek appointment of the sole Arbitrator to decide the

disputes between the parties, which have arisen out of the

Super Distributor Agreement entered into between the

parties, dated 23.01.2014, whereunder the respondents were

appointed as the Super Distributor. The said agreement

contains an arbitration clause, which provides that the said

disputes between the parties shall be resolved through

arbitration.

2. The case of the applicant is that the respondents

did not clear the outstanding dues in respect of the supplies

made by the applicant, thereby running up liability of

Rs.14,27,20,876/-. The applicant invoked the arbitration

agreement vide notice dated 07.09.2022. Despite invocation

of arbitration agreement, the parties have not been able to

appoint an Arbitrator, and consequently, this arbitration

application was preferred.

3. The respondents have filed their reply raising the

issue of limitation. It is claimed by the respondents that the

last transaction between the parties took place in March,

2019, whereafter, the applicant has not invoked the

arbitration agreement within three years.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that

dispute raised by the respondents with regard to the

limitation is a disputed question of fact, inasmuch, as firstly

COVID had intervened in March, 2020, and the Supreme

Court suspended the limitation period. It is argued that the

limitation in the present case is expired during the COVID

period. Secondly, the terms and conditions of the contract

would need interpretation with regard to the time within

which the payments were required to be made by the

respondents. This service can be undertaken only by the

learned Arbitrator, when appointed.

5. In the facts of this case, it cannot be said with

certainty at this stage, whether the claim of the applicant is

barred by limitation, or not. The issue is a mixed question of

facts and law, which have to be determined upon examination

upon the evidences being led by the parties, and upon

interpretation of the agreement by the Tribunal.

6. Since there is no dispute between the parties with

regard to the execution of the agreement entered by the

parties, which also contains an arbitration agreement, and

the invocation of the said agreement by the applicant, I am

inclined to allow this application.

7. Accordingly, this application is allowed, and I

appoint Mr. Justice P. Naveen Rao, Retired Judge, High Court

of Telangana (Mobile No.8374012311), to act as the sole

Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties,

under the aforesaid Agreement/ Contract.

8. The learned Arbitrator may conduct the

proceedings virtually.

9. The present application stands disposed of in the

aforesaid terms.

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

(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)

Dated: 25th August, 2023 NISHANT