Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV NARULA
Hoya Medical India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Everest Vision – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disputes arose from distributorship agreements. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. existence of arbitration agreement is cited. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's interpretation confirms arbitration's validity. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. appointment of sole arbitrator is ordered. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)--The present petition under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter, "the Act"] seeks appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes that have arisen between the parties.
2. Briefly put, the parties entered into a Distributorship Agreement dated 1st May, 2018, wherein the Respondent agreed to purchase various products relating to medical services. Subsequently, a fresh Distributorship Agreement was executed on 15th November, 2019, which was effective retrospectively from 1st April, 2019. Later, two addendums were also executed, effective from 1st May, 2019 and 19th August, 2019 respectively. It is the case of the Petitioner that, in terms of the aforesaid agreements between the parties, several invoices raised by the Petitioner against supplies made, are outstanding. Petitioner also contends
An arbitration clause that mandates referral to arbitration constitutes a binding arbitration agreement, regardless of discretionary language used; parties are required to adhere to the arbitration m....
A valid arbitration agreement requires clear intent and specific terms; mere mention of 'arbitration' does not suffice. The absence of mutual intent and clarity in an arbitration clause results in di....
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
