TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court appoints arbitrator in purchase order dispute emphasizing limited intervention and adherence to arbitration agreement.</h1> <h3>TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. Versus Lindsay International Private Limited</h3> TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. Versus Lindsay International Private Limited - TMI Issues Involved:1. Existence of Arbitration Agreement2. Non-payment of dues3. Pendency of a related suit4. Waiver of right to arbitration5. Jurisdiction of the High Court6. Appointment of ArbitratorDetailed Analysis:1. Existence of Arbitration Agreement:The petitioner filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator due to disputes arising from a purchase order dated 12th March 2015. The arbitration clause in the purchase order mandates that disputes be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Rules of Arbitration of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent did not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement.2. Non-payment of Dues:The petitioner supplied materials as per the purchase order, which were accepted by the respondent. However, the respondent failed to pay Rs. 2,96,09,916/- to the petitioner. The petitioner initially sought relief through an interlocutory application, which was dismissed, leading to the invocation of the arbitration clause.3. Pendency of a Related Suit:The respondent and others filed a suit (C.S. No. 2 of 2017) against the petitioner, alleging breach of an exclusive agreement. The petitioner argued that the pendency of the suit should not bar the appointment of an arbitrator since the petitioner did not submit to the court's jurisdiction regarding the purchase order dispute. The court noted that the suit's frame should not prevent arbitration, as the law requires satisfaction only with the existence of the arbitration agreement.4. Waiver of Right to Arbitration:The respondent argued that the petitioner waived its right to arbitration by filing a written statement in the suit, thus submitting to the court's jurisdiction. The court held that the plea of waiver is not relevant at the stage of appointing an arbitrator and should be decided by the arbitral tribunal or in an application under Section 8 of the Act.5. Jurisdiction of the High Court:The court emphasized that the amended Section 11(6A) of the Act restricts the court's power to examine only the existence of an arbitration agreement. The court referred to the legislative intent to minimize court intervention and ensure speedy arbitration proceedings.6. Appointment of Arbitrator:The court appointed Hon'ble Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas (Retired) as the sole arbitrator, directing the arbitrator to fix commensurate remuneration and conclude the reference within twelve months of the statement of claim being lodged. The court stayed the order's operation for two weeks upon the respondent's request for a stay.Conclusion:The court allowed the petition for the appointment of an arbitrator, emphasizing the restricted scope of judicial intervention under the amended Act and the need to respect the arbitration agreement between the parties. The decision underscores the legislative intent to facilitate arbitration with minimal court interference.
TaxTMI 