Back
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Modi-mundipharma Beauty Products Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
S. M. Enterprises Through Its Proprietor And Another – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 11(5) of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 seeking appointment of arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
2. Pertinently, petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of marketing, selling of cosmetic and personal care products.
3. according to the petitioner, respondent no.1 is a proprietorship firm and engaged in the business of trading of cosmetic products and running and managing the sale of various products. Respondent no.2 is the sole proprietor of respondent no.1.
4. It is averred that petitioner executed a Memorandum of Understanding with the respondents on 27.07.2017 for selling the products of the petitioner under the brand name of 'Revlon' & 'Street Wear' for a period of 2 years commencing from 27.07.2017 till 26.07.2019 which could be renewed for further term of 12 months. On 25.08.2017, petitioner company had entered into a lease deed with Mr.Manoj Kumar Lilani, Mr.Dalip Kumar Lilani and Mr.Sanjay Kumar Lilani, owners of t
The court's decision emphasized the arbitrability of the disputes and the appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996.
The court confirmed the right to appoint an arbitrator due to the respondent's non-compliance with the terms of the agreement, affirming that the disputes were arbitrable.
The main legal point established is the court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 when the parties fail to mutually appoint one,....
The presence of an arbitration clause in an agreement, the arbitrability of disputes, and the fulfillment of necessary requisites under the Arbitration Act influence the court's decision to appoint a....
The court can appoint an Arbitrator when parties fail to mutually agree, as per agreement provisions and arbitration law.
The court's decision was based on the specific provisions of the lease agreement and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, emphasizing the importance of compliance with the arbitration process.
The court emphasized the importance of compliance with the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 and directed the appointment of arbitrators as per the agreement reached by the parties.
Appointment of Sole Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Appointment of Sole Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court established that both parties must mutually agree on the appointment of an arbitrator to ensure unbiased adjudication and upheld the arbitration agreement between the parties.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
