Back
PRATEEK JALAN
Panasonic India Private Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Shah Aircon – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"], the petitioner [hereinafter referred to as "Panasonic"] seeks appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes which have arisen between the parties under an Agreement dated 05.09.2016, entitled "Distribution Agreement" [hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement"].
Facts
2. By way of the Agreement, Panasonic was to sell electronic goods to the respondent [hereinafter referred to as "Shah Aircon"], which, according to Panasonic, is a proprietorship firm dealing in electronic goods. The Agreement contains clauses1 with regard to jurisdiction and dispute resolution in the following terms:
"XXIV. GOVERNING LAW: This Agreement and all PO under this Agreement shall be exclusively governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of India, without regard to choice of law principles. All issues relating to appointment of arbitrator or any petition or application to be made to the Court under the applicable arbitration law or any Arbitration Award or any issue arising out of such arbitration proceedings shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdict
The use of 'may' in arbitration agreements indicates optionality rather than obligation, requiring mutual consent for arbitration to be valid.
An arbitration agreement must evidence an unambiguous intention to refer disputes to arbitration, and mere use of the word 'arbitration' is not sufficient to construe an agreement as an arbitration a....
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
