Surinder Singh Nijjar, J. - (1.) The Petitioner has filed the present application under Sections 11(4) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with paragraph 2 of the Appointment of the Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of India Scheme, 1996. It is stated that the parties had entered into a legally valid and enforceable Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 25th September, 2007, providing, inter alia, for the respective obligation of both the parties in connection with the marketing of the cars of the Petitioner. Though the term of the MOU was till December, 2007, it was extended by the acts of the parties in terms of Clause 2 of the MOU.
(2.) The Petitioner makes a reference to various requests made by the Respondent for supply of cars in terms of MOU on 22nd April, 2008; 24th August, 2008; and 1st April, 2009. The Petitioner further claims that some time in September 2009, disputes arose between the parties. Numerous e-mails were exchanged between the parties, apart from the personal discussions between their representatives, touching and covering the disputes. It is the Petitioners claim that during the term of MOU, merely 15 cars of the Petitioner had been sold in the Belgium Region. The Petitioner, therefore, claimed that the Respondent did not have in place the necessary resources to build the brand of the Petitioner. Consequently, through e-mail dated 25th September, 2009 the Petitioner requested the Respondent to immediately cease sales and marketing activities on its behalf and take necessary steps of providing after sales and service to existing car owners, till such time the Petitioner appointed its new distributor. The Petitioner claims that the aforesaid e-mail duly constituted the termination of the contractual relationship between the parties as covered under the MOU.
(3.) As a consequence of the aforesaid termination, the parties have exchanged various e-mails raising claims and counter claims on 6th /7th /8th October, 2009.;