IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.259/2017 BETWEEN:
M/S. KIRLOSKAR ELECTRICAL COMPANY LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT INDUSTRIAL SUBURB RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 055 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER LEGAL AND AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHRI VIJAY KUMAR ANGADI PETITIONER (BY SRI.K.V. SATISH, ADVOCATE) AND:
M/S. ANKIT METAL & POWER LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.35, CHITTARANJAN AVENUE KOLKATA-700 012, WEST BENGAL REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR RESPONDENT (BY SMT. GEETHA MISHRA FOR SRI G.R. MOHAN, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO EXERCISE THE POWER UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 AND APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTES THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPODNENT AS PER THE PURCHASE ORDER BEARING NO.PC11225-002 DATED 25.02.2012 (ANNEXURE-A), PURCHASE ORDER BEARING NO.PC13611-002 DATED 11.06.2013 (ANNEXURE-B) AND (a) INVOICES BEARING NO.132006046 DATED 31.01.2013 (ANNEXURE-C1), (b) INVOICE BEARING NO.1302006123 DATED 31.01.2013 (ANNEXURE-C2) (c)INVOICE BEARING NO.1302006045 DATED 31.01.2013 (ANNEXURE-C3), (d) INVOICE BEARING NO.1302006744 DATED 28.02.2013 (ANNEXURE-C4) AND (e) INVOICE BEARING NO.1425005219 DATED 19.08.2013 (ANNEXURE- C5) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has filed the present civil miscellaneous petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties as per clause 6 of the purchase orders dated 25.02.2012 and 11.06.2013.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner-company is engaged in the business of the manufacture and sales of electrical equipments. The respondent-company is in the business of manufacturing, trading, import and export of High Carbon Ferro Chrome, Silico Manganese, Ferro Manganese and Ferro Silicon in India. During the month of October – 2010. A representative of the respondent-company had approached the petitioner- company for purchase of certain electrical motors. The respondent-company has placed purchase orders for purchase of electrical motors from the petitioner- company. As and when the electrical motors were supplied by the petitioner-company to the respondent- company, it raised invoices for having supplied the electrical motors. From 25.02.2012 and 11.06.2013, the respondent-company has placed purchase orders for the purchase of electrical motors from the petitioner- company. The respondent-company was not regular in making the payment to the petitioner-company and started postponing the payments of money without any reasons. After regular follow-up and demand, the respondent-company made a payment of Rs.7,50,000/- on 15.05.2014 by way of RTGS and the said payment is the last payment by the respondent-company to the petitioner-company. The respondent-company is still in due to an extent of Rs.25,66,497/-. In spite of the demand, the respondent-company has not settled the outstanding amount. Therefore, the petitioner-company was forced to issue legal notice on 07.11.2014. In spite of that notice, there was no response from the respondent-company. Therefore, the petitioner- company has filed the present petition for relief sought for.
3. The respondent-company has filed objections and disputed the alleged due of amount. When the matter came up before this Court on 03.04.2019, Sri. G.R. Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the document contained at page No.20 of the paper book is a forged document. Therefore, this Court directed the respondent-company to file an affidavit duly sworn by an Officer of the respondent stating that the document contained at page No.20 of the paper book is a forged document or not. Accordingly, Sri. K.V. Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit of the petitioner stating that Annexure – A is genuine and the affidavit filed by the respondent, which is produced at Annexure – R3 is not correct.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Sri. K.V. Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the averments made in the petition contended that in view of the purchase agreement entered between the parties in order to resolve any dispute, there is a arbitration clause in both the purchase orders. In spite of legal notice issued, the respondents have not replied. Therefore, he sought to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, Smt. Geetha Misra, learned counsel appearing for Sri. G.R. Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent fairly submits that sole arbitrator may be appointed to adjudicate the dispute.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, it is undisputed fact that the petitioner- company is engaged in the business of the manufacture and sales of electrical equipments. The respondent- company is in the business of manufacturing, trading, importing and export of High Carbon Ferro Chrome, Silico Manganese, Ferro Manganese and Ferro Silicon in India. It is also not in dispute that the respondent- company has placed purchase orders on 25.02.2012 and 11.06.2013. The clause No.6 in the purchase order reads as under:
“6. ARBITRATION: All disputes of differences whatsoever arising between the parties out of or in relation to work/supply of work order/purchase order or effect to dis-contract or breach thereafter shall be settled amicably. However, if the parties are unable to solve them amicably, the same shall be finalized setting by arbitration and reconciliation. The award may in pursuance thereafter shall be final and binding on the parties.”
8. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner- company has complied the provisions of Section 7(5) of the Act by issuing legal notice. The same is not replied by the respondent-company. In view of admission of purchase orders and existence of arbitration clause, there is no impediment for this Court to appoint sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute entered into between the parties.
9. In view of the above, the civil miscellaneous petition is allowed. Shri. S. Siddalingesh, former District Judge is appointed as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute in terms of clause 6 of the purchase orders dated 25.02.2012 and 11.06.2013 entered into between the parties.
10. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to Shri. S. Siddalingesh, former District Judge as well as to the Arbitration Centre, Bengaluru, forthwith, for reference.
All the contentions of the parties are kept open to be urged before the learned arbitrator.
Sd/- JUDGE VBS