Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
TVS Motor Company Limited, Rep. By its DGM – Legal, K. Pradeep, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Bansal Auto, Through its Sole Proprietor, Brji Bhushan Bansal, Haryana – Respondent
Arb. O.P(Com.Div). No. 661 of 2022
Decided On : 02-03-2023
Arbitration - Appointment of Sole Arbitrator - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11(5)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from an Authorised Main Dealership Agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute between the parties fell within the scope of the AMD agreement and was arbitable. Both parties had filed petitions in different High Courts for the appointment of an arbitrator, indicating their intent to resolve the dispute through arbitration.
Issues: The main issue was the appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising from the AMD agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided to appoint Mr. T. Ravindren as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties, with the arbitration proceedings to be conducted at Chennai as agreed by both parties.
Final Decision: The court ordered the appointment of a sole arbitrator and left the parties to bear their own costs. The parties were also given the liberty to seek other reliefs under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the appointed arbitrator.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer : Original Petition is filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to pass an order of appointing a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out of the Authorised Main Dealership Agreement dated 01.04.2018.)
1. This petition has been filed under Section 11(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred as “the Act”), seeking to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out of the Authorised Main Dealership Agreement dated 01.04.2018.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and the respondent entered into an Authorised Main Dealership Agreement (hereinafter referred as “the AMD agreement”) dated 01.04.2018, at Hosur, whereunder the respondent was appointed as an Authorised Main Dealer of the petitioner at Sirsa, Haryana to market the products manufactured by the petitioner and the terms of the AMD agreement was expired by efflux of time on 30.09.2018. Thereafter, at the sole discretion of the petitioner, the terms of the AMD agreement was extended vide renewal letters dated 01.08.2018, 01.07.2019 and 19.05.2020. In the letter dated 19.05.2020, the petitioner had categorically stated that the extension granted thereunder was the last and final extension and there would be no further extension of the AMD agreement beyond 30.09.2020 and thus, the AMD agreement was finally expired on 30.09.2020.
3. After the expiry of the AMD agreement on 30.09.2020, contrary to Clause 21.3 of the said agreement, the respondent has been representing to the general public that they are still the Authorised Main Dealer of the petitioner Company at Sirsa, Haryana. In view of such state of affairs, the petitioner was constrained to issue a notice dated 12.01.2022 to the respondent calling upon to:
(a) Forthwith do all necessary acts, deeds and things to cease and desist from using the trademark, “TVS”, in any manner whatsoever and in particular in relation to the respondent''s business/products and refrain from committing infringement of the petitioner''s well-known trademark of “TVS”.
(b) Remove all reference to the petitioner''s trademark, “TVS” in the respondent''s display board and invoices, and,
(c) Pay a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore) as special damages within a period of 7 days from the receipt of the said notice.
4. Even after the receipt of the said notice, the respondent failed to comply with demands made by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner issued a public notice dated 14.01.2022 in a newspaper viz., “Dainik Bhaskar”, cautioning the general public not to deal with the respondent believing the respondent to be the Authorised Main Dealer of the petitioner at Sirsa, Haryana. Despite being aware of the said public notice, the respondent continued to misrepresent the general public. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to invoke the Clause 27 of the AMD agreement and issued a notice of arbitration dated 07.10.2022 under Section 21 of the Act, by nominating Mr.Vijay Narayan, Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan and Mr.Yashod Vardhan as arbitrator and requested the respondent to confirm any one of them as arbitrator. However, there was no response from the respondent. Hence, the present petition came to be filed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even after the termination of the terms and conditions of the AMD agreement, the respondent continued to represent themselves as the Authorised Main Dealer of the petitioner Company. The respondent has not replied to any of the notice sent by the petitioner. However, the respondent has moved an Arbitration Petition No.427 of 2022 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Since, the substantial part of cause of action aroused within the jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner has come up with the present petition seeking to appoint a Sole Arbitrato
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the recognition of the di....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint an independent arbitrator based on the terms of the Dealership Agreement and the arbitration clause contained in i....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the arbitrability of disputes arising from a dealership agreement and the nature of relief that can be granted in arbitration, as governed by the A....
The Limitation Act, 1963 applies to arbitration proceedings, allowing for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, within three years from the right t....
The Court may defer an application under S. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act if the contract mandates a preliminary negotiation mechanism that has not yet been exhausted by the parties.
Strict enforcement of arbitration agreement and the law does not permit either party to act as an arbitrator or appoint the arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the disputes sought to be referred to arbitration were not precluded by the Cancellation Agreement and required a detailed examination by a du....
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
