JUDGEMENT
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. -
(1.) THE petitioner is a partnership firm registered with the Registrar of Firms, Hyderabad and is engaged in the business of marketing and
distribution of varied products and financing of marketing operations.
The petitioner claims that it has had long term business relations for
more than 17 years with the respondent being engaged in the business of
manufacture and sale of MDF panels having its manufacturing facility at
Tohana, Haryana.
(2.) IN 2006, the Managing Director of the respondent -company is stated to have approached the petitioner seeking assistance in marketing the
products of the respondent in South India alongwith financing facility
for each sale. A Memorandum of Agreement for marketing was thus executed
inter -se the parties on 15.04.2006 whereby the petitioner was appointed
as a Selling Agent for Sobha Developers. The petitioner was required to
pay 97% of the invoice value in advance to the respondent if a customer
being identified placed an order for MDF panels and this money was to be
utilized by the respondent for manufacture and delivery of the product.
The amount was to be repaid to the petitioner alongwith the balance 3% to
be treated as sales commission. However, there was shortage in payments
made by the respondent from time to time and by March, 2011, a total
amount had accumulated to Rs. 92,30,023/ -. The reminders were sent by the
petitioner on 04.07.2011, 25.08.2011, 10.10.2011 and 28.09.2011. On
25.10.2011, the respondent is stated to have enclosed with its letter a statement of accounts admitting that a total sum payable was Rs.
92,30,023/ - but had failed to pay the amount. The petitioner came to know that the respondent was apparently in default of several creditors
including I.F.C.I. which had initiated proceedings under the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 and had taken control of the property of the
respondent situated at Faridabad. This fact came to light on the visit of
petitioner 's representative to the factory on 12.02.2012.
Since the agreement inter -se the parties dated 15.04.2006 contains an Arbitration Clause, a notice invoking arbitration dated 25.02.2012 was
sent to the respondent suggesting for appointment of a panel of three
Arbitrators but there was no response. The Arbitration Clause is as
under: -
''4.5 Arbitration: - In the event of any dispute arising out of or in relation to this Agreement, the same shall be referred to and decided by Arbitration in accordance with Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Arbitrator shall be appointed by the Managing Director of our Company. ''
(3.) THE petitioner also took steps to seek interim protection qua alienation of assets by filing an Arbitration Petition No. 13 of 2012
under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the said Act ') before District Courts, Faridabad. In
reply thereto also, the respondent did not deny the liability and the
Arbitration Petition was allowed by the District Judge, Faridabad on
11.10.2012 restraining the respondent from alienating its properties and directing it to furnish the security within a period of one month failing
which the petitioner was entitled to take possession of the properties of
the respondent. No securities have, however, been forthcoming nor has the
petitioner been able to take possession of any assets as the IFCI has
exercised its lien.
The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the said Act
seeking appointment of an Arbitrator in view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.