Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) This application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by M/s Biogenetic Drugs Pvt. Ltd., a proprietorship firm, through its proprietor Mukut Bihari Goyal, praying for appointment of Sole Arbitrator for resolving its disputes with the respondent.
(2.) Mr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner firm is engaged in the business of manufacturing/supplying drugs and medicines. On 05.06.2012 the petitioner firm entered into a contract with the respondent for a period of one year for supplying specific drugs/medicines. Clause 8 of the agreement contemplated appointment of an Arbitrator in case of any dispute. After completion of the contract, the respondent illegally deducted a sum of Rs.1,49,51,969/- out of the payment sanction No.142/2013-14, against the penalty order dated 30.05.2013. The petitioner firm served a notice dated 17.02.2017 on the respondent invoking the arbitration clause and prayed for referring the dispute to Sole Arbitrator for settlement. The respondent failed to act in accordance with the clear procedure and did not appoint the Arbitrator.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Duro Felguera S.A. Vs. Gangavaram Port Limited, 2017 9 SCC 729, argued that in view of the amended Section 11(6A) added by the 2015 Amendment, the Court should and need only look into one aspect the existence of an arbitration agreement and no other point is required to be considered for referring the dispute.;