The court emphasized the importance of the written arbitration agreement and the designation of venue as the juridical seat of arbitral proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Prakash Shrivastava, CJ. - This application under Section 11 of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 has been field for appointment of arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.

2. The case of the applicant is that the agreement was entered into between the applicant and the respondent in the form of a supply contract-cum-purchase order dated 10th January, 2018. In terms of the purchase order the respondent was required to supply power transformers of prescribed technical specification of SBPDCL and Rural Electrical Corporation to Gaya District of Bihar and the said contract was in nature of the sub-contract by the applicant in favour of the respondent. The allegation of the applicant is that the respondent had acted in breach of the purchase order as a result of which applicant has suffered substantial loss, damages. The purchase order contained the arbitration clause, therefore, applicant had sent the letter dated 23rd of September, 2020 to the respondent invoking the arbitration clause and nominating his arbitrator. Respondent by communication dated 19th of October, 2020 had refused the prayer for arbitration.

3. Submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the purchase order which contained the arbitration clause is undisputed and was duly acted upon and the dispute has arisen between the parties, therefore, in terms of the arbitration agreement arbitrator needs to be appointed. He further submits that this Court has jurisdiction because the seat of arbitration is at Kolkata and even otherwise cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent has opposed the application by submitting that the unsigned purchase order is not an arbitration agreement in terms of Section 7 of the act and that as per the purchase order Kolkata is a venue of arbitration which cannot be treated as seat of arbitration, therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction.

5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the record, it is noticed that the purchase order dated 10.01.2018 is not in dispute between the parties. The terms and conditions which are part of the purchase order contain following arbitration clause:

6. The purchase order reveals that two copies of purchase order were sent by the applicant to the respondent with the stipulation that the respondent will retain the original and will return the second copy. Purchase order stipulates that if the acknowledgment of the receipt of the order was not done within seven days from the date of receipt, then it would be presumed that the respondent had accepted it. It is not in dispute that the purchase order was received by the respondent and that the respondent had acted upon the purchase order and had made supply in pursuance thereto. It is also not in dispute that respondent had initiated proceedings against the applicant on the ground of non-payment in terms of purchase order under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

7. an issue has been raised that the purchase order is not signed by the parties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Govind Rubber Limited vs. Louis Dreyfus Commodities asia Private Limited reported in (2015) 13 SCC 477 considering the scope of Section 7 of the act has held that arbitration agreement need not be signed by all the parties and th