- (1.) The second and third respondents have been improperly impleaded as they are not parties to the arbitration agreement. The names of the second and third respondents are deleted from the array of parties, leaving the first respondent as the sole respondent. Though no affidavit has been permitted to be filed by the respondent to this request under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the facts as evident from the list of dates submitted by the respondent are accepted. The respondent has not questioned the existence of the arbitration agreement but suggests that there is no live claim to be carried to a reference thereunder.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed in the year 1990 for selling certain consumer durables manufactured by the respondent. The agreement was terminated by a notice dated August 9, 2008. Upon initial complaints in writing made by the petitioner to the respondent yielding no benefit to the petitioner, the petitioner filed a suit in this Court for damages and seeking a decree of about Rs. 66 lakh. The respondent applied under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the parties to the suit were referred to arbitration in terms of the relevant clause in the matrix contract by an order dated July 15, 2010.
(3.) The petitioner thereafter applied under section 9 of the said Act of 1996 before this Court and such application, AP No. 452 of 2010, was disposed of by an order of June 16, 2011 in the presence of the respondent. Joint Receivers were appointed to conduct sale of some of the respondent's products that remained with the petitioner. It does not appear that at the time that the initial petition under section 9 of the 1996 Act was filed in this Court, any objection as to jurisdiction was raised by the respondent herein.;