Cox & Kings Ltd. vs Sap India Pvt. Ltd.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 760

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
Cox & Kings Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Sap India Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Hiroo Advani, Adv. Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, AOR Ms. Vindhya Mehra, Adv. Ms. Madhur Jhavar, Adv. Mr. Navdeep Dahiya, Adv. Ms. Praveena Bisht, Adv. Mr. Kartik Lahoti, Adv. Mr. Kumar Vinayakam Gupta, Adv. Ms. Samridhi Bhatt, Adv. Ms. Shreya Gokel, Adv. Ms. Anushka Awasthi, Adv. Ms. Ria Garg, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ritin Rai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Farhad Sorabjee, Adv. Mr. Dheeraj Nair, AOR Mr. Kumar Kislay, Adv. Mr. Pratik Pawar, Adv. Mr. Siddhesh Pradhan, Adv. Ms. Shanaya Cyrus Irani, Adv. Mr. George Pothan Poothicote, Adv. Ms. Manisha Singh, Adv. Mr. Prakarsh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Singh, Adv. Mr. Arunava Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Debesh Panda, AOR Mr. Pallav Mongia, AOR Mrs. Vanita Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Aseem Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Milind Sharma, Adv. For M/S. Khaitan & Co. Mr. Ujjwal A Rana, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Mehta, Adv. M/S. Gagrat And Co, AOR

JUDGMENT :

J. B. PARDIWALA, J.:

1. Cox & Kings Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “petitioner”) has filed the present petition in terms of Section 11(6) read with Section 11(12)(a) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act, 1996”), seeking appointment of an arbitrator for the adjudication of disputes and claims in terms of clause 15.7 of the Services General Terms and Conditions Agreement dated 30.10.2015 entered into between the Petitioner and SAP India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “respondent no. 1”)

A. FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of providing tourism packages and hospitality services to its customers.

3. Respondent no. 1 is also a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of providing business software solution services. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SAP SE GMBH (Germany) (hereinafter referred to as the “respondent no. 2”), a company incorporated under the laws of Germany.

4. The petitioner and respondent no. 1 entered into a SAP Software End User License Agreement & SAP Enterprise Support Schedule (for short “License

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(SC) 760

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRACox & Kings Ltd. – AppellantVersusSap India Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent

Cases Referred (9)

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
Cox & Kings Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Sap India Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent