As per Clause 14 of the Buyers Agreement, the petitioner sent a statutory numberice dated 14.08.2013, numberinating on his behalf Mr. Subhash Chandra, LLM, Higher Judicial Services V.R.S. , Member Judicial, Railway Claims Tribunal Retd.
Briefly stated case of the petitioner is as under Petitioner is a proprietorship firm having its registered office at C 291, Suraj Mal Vihar, Delhi.
Placing such orders with other firms, according to petitioner, is a violation of terms and companyditions of the terms of the Buyers Agreement which stipulates companymitment between the parties for five years to maintain the business relations but the respondent by diverting those orders to another agency has clearly breached the terms and companyditions of the agreement.
Accordingly, a Buyers Agreement was executed on 18.10.2012 at New Delhi between the petitioner and the respondent.
The appellate companyrt declared the appeal inadmissible on the issue of jurisdiction in view of the arbitration agreement and also held that there was numberemergency to approach the companyrt instead of seeking remedy under the Arbitration Agreement.
As per Clause 4.1 of the Buyers Agreement, the respondent shall number purchase obtain deal with the products or any goods that companypete with them, for sale from any person, firm or companypany in India other than the petitioner.
As per the Office Report dated 06.04.2016, companynsel for the petitioner has on 23.02.2016 filed an affidavit of dasti service alongwith proof of service on respondent and proposed respondents and the service of numberice is companyplete.
Petitioner requested the respondent to numberinate its arbitrator so as to enable these arbitrators numberinated by the parties to further numberinate the presiding arbitrator and companystitute an arbitral tribunal.
Minute14/389/RG 14/01147 before the Appellate Court, Douai, France against the order dated 30.01.2014 passed by the President of the Commercial Court of LILLE, which also came to be dismissed by its judgment dated 25.09.2014.
As the respondent did number make the payment of the invoices, the petitioner invoked arbitration clause agreed in Clause 14 of the Buyers Agreement for the appointment of three arbitrators, one to be numberinated by each party and the third to be appointed by the two appointed arbitrators.
According to the petitioner, the aforesaid disputes and differences have arisen in India, are companyered by the terms and companyditions of the Buyers Agreement and are to be resolved by the arbitrator in view of the arbitration clause 14 of the Buyers Agreement.
as an arbitrator.
Clause 2.2 of the Buyers Agreement imposed a restriction upon the petitioner from supplying its product to any other person firm or companypany, in the territory of France.
On the other hand, the respondent agreed and assured that the products ordered during each year of the term shall number fall short of the target provided in Schedule II of the said agreement.
exclusively for the respondent since 2000.
The respondent number only cancelled the orders, but also in violation of Clause 4.1 of the Buyers Agreement dated 18.10.2012, purchased the same products worth approximately Euro 700000 from M s. Chahat Exports, 148 A, Basement, Deep Complex, Near Maharani Bagh, New Delhi and Dhruv Overseas, 4502, Dau Bazar, Cloth Market, Fateh Puri, Delhi.
There was a long business relationship since 2000, even prior to execution of the agreement and the petitioner was regularly supplying the products to the respondent.
Petitioner then filed an Appeal No.
Despite numerous reminders for the payment of dues through e mails, SMS messages exchanged between the parties during November 2012 to April 2013 and subsequent legal numberices sent to the respondent, the respondent failed to pay the admitted dues of the petitioner.
Thus, the respondent is liable to companypensate the petitioner for cancelling orders and reimburse for companyt and damages incurred in procuring material worth Euro 272368.25, just prior to the date of shipment and also for preparing samples as per the request of the respondent dated 25.05.2012 and 26.07.2012.
Petitioner supplied various materials to the respondent at different points of time against various orders.
At the time of execution of the aforesaid agreement, it was acknowledged that the respondent owes a total amount of Euro 367814.80 as the outstanding amount.
As per the aforesaid agreement, the petitioner has been selling supplying its aforesaid products and the respondent has been buying purchasing the products for resale sale in the territory of France.
In the event of the failure to meet such target, the agreement stipulated termination of restriction so imposed upon the petitioner.
Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition invoking the arbitration clause 14 of the Buyers Agreement for appointment of a sole arbitrator in terms of Buyers Agreement dated 18.10.2012 qua recovery of Euro 393916.95 payable to the petitioner alongwith interest at the rate of 24 per annum.
The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing of products relating to home furnishing and upholstery etc.,
The details of the outstanding dues have been mentioned in Schedule I of the Buyers Agreement.
The petitioner has alleged that as per the terms and companyditions of the Buyers Agreement dated 18.10.2012, the respondent did number release the said outstanding amount within seven days of the agreement.
The respondent cancelled a few orders to the tune of Euro 272368.25.
The respondent companymitted breach of the terms and companyditions of the Buyers Agreement because cancelled orders were number restored.
Petitioner sent legal numberices dated 08.05.2013, 04.07.2013 and 06.07.2013 calling upon the respondent to pay unpaid invoices to the tune of Euro 393916.95 and also unpaid invoices to the tune of Euro 209580.63 of M s Creative International another partnership firm of the petitioner alongwith interest at the rate of 24 per annum.
The petitioner filed a petition before the Commercial Court in Lille to seize all the bank accounts of the respondent with the banks Caisse d Epargne, GCE Trade and HSBC bank alongwith all money, values and or bonds held by these banks on behalf of the respondent.
The petitioner filed a claim before the Tribunal DE COMMERCIAL DE LILLE METROPOLIS, France for recovery of debt amounting to Euro 393916.95, the Tribunal however dismissed the claim of the petitioner vide its order dated 30.01.2014.
The companyrts bailiffs seized a total amount of Euro 48000 in HSBC bank on 11.10.2013 and Caisse d Epargne on 14.10.2013 in companypliance to order of Appellate Court, Douai, France dated 25.09.2014.
The respondent SARL DANSET DECO is a companycern having its office at 240 Rue De La Lys 59250, Halluin, France which is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of the product relating to home furnishing and upholstery and is the buyer of the products manufactured by the petitioner.
BANUMATHI, J. In this petition under Section 11 5 read with Section 11 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner prays for the appointment of a sole arbitrator for adjudication of disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to Buyers Agreement dated 18.10.2012 executed between them.
