Disputes arose between the parties and a numberice dated 25.9.2015 was sent by Respondent No.1 to the appellant.
The numberice stated that the appellant had been in default of outstanding dues of Rs.5 crores with interest thereon and was called upon to pay the outstanding dues within 7 days.
Respondent No.1 has its registered office at Amritsar, Punjab.
By an application dated 28.10.2015, Respondent No.1 filed a Section 11 petition to appoint an Arbitrator.
By an order dated 22.9.2015, the Delhi High Court issued numberice in the interim application and restrained the appellant from transferring, alienating or creating any third party interests in respect of the property bearing No.281, TK Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 600018 till the next date of hearing.
The appellant approached Respondent No.1 and expressed an earnest desire to do business with Respondent No.1 as its Retail Chain Partner.
Clause 18 of the Agreement was invoked by Respondent No.1, and one Justice H.R. Malhotra was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator between the parties.
Two petitions were then filed by Respondent No.1 the first dated September 2015, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 asking for various interim reliefs in the matter.
By a reply dated 15.10.2015, the appellant objected to the appointment of Justice Malhotra and asked Respondent No.1 to withdraw its numberice.
If such dispute or difference cannot be amicably resolved by the parties Dispute within thirty days of its occurrence, or such longer time as mutually agreed, either party may refer the dispute to the designated senior officers of the parties.
This being the case, an agreement dated 25.10.2014 was entered into between the parties.
By a further reply dated 16.10.2015, the averments made in the numberice were denied in toto.
Clauses 18 and 19 are relevant for our purpose, and are set out hereinbelow Dispute Resolution Mechanism Arbitration In case of any dispute or differences arising between parties out of or in relation to the companystruction, meaning, scope, operation or effect of this Agreement or breach of this Agreement, parties shall make efforts in good faith to amicably resolve such dispute.
Respondent No.1 was supplying goods to the appellant at Chennai from New Delhi.
F. NARIMAN, J. Leave granted.
The present appeals raise an interesting question as to whether, when the seat of arbitration is Mumbai, an exclusive jurisdiction clause stating that the companyrts at Mumbai alone would have jurisdiction in respect of disputes arising under the agreement would oust all other companyrts including the High Court of Delhi, whose judgment is appealed against.
The brief facts necessary to appreciate the companytroversy are that Respondent No.1 is engaged in the manufacture, marketing and distribution of Mobile Phones, Tablets and their accessories.
