2026:BHC-OS:400 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.694 OF 2025 Ingram Micro India Private Limited ....Applicant V/S Vinod Murlidhar Mulchandani Prop of AAR VEE Computers ....Respondent WITH COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.695 OF 2025 Ingram Micro India Private Limited ....Applicant V/S Vinod Murlidhar Mulchandani Karta of Vinod Murlidhar Mulchandani HUF, Trade Name G K Web ....Respondent _________

Ms. Drishti Ojha i/b M/s. Legal Prism for the Applicant.

Mr. Sarosh Damania with Ms. Madhura Shah for Respondent.

__________

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATE : 7 JANUARY 2026.

P.C.:

1. These Petitions are filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) seeking appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences between the Applicant and the Respondents.

2. The Applicant is engaged in the business inter alia of distribution and sale of IT hardware and software products, telecommunication and office automation equipment and other allied services. The Respondents in both the Petitions are also engaged in the business of sale and purchase of IT products. The disputes between the parties have arisen on account of alleged non-payment of invoice amounts by the Respondents to the Applicant towards sale and supply of IT related products by the Applicant to the Respondents.

3. The Applicant relies upon clause 12 printed on reverse of tax invoices which reads thus:

12. The transaction under this invoice, shall be subject to laws of India and the Courts in Mumbai shall have exclusive jurisdiction. Any dispute pertaining to transaction under this invoice shall be referred to sole arbitrator appointed by mutually by the parties and the decision of the said Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties. The Arbitration shall be conducted as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the seat and venue of Arbitration shall be at Mumbai, India.

4. As the invoices remained unpaid legal notices under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act were issued on 25 September 2025 referring to clause 12 printed on the invoices. The notices are replied by the Respondents on 23 October 2025 inter alia stating in paragraphs 2 and

6 as under:

2. The invoices relied upon by your Client are unilateral documents generated by them and were never countersigned or acknowledged by our Client in acceptance of the alleged "Terms & Conditions" or the so-called arbitration clause printed overleaf or online. Hence, the alleged arbitration agreement is denied in toto.

6. Our Client categorically denies any fraudulent intent or wilful default. Payments were withheld due to disputes regarding delivery discrepancies, delayed supplies, and debit-note adjustments, details of which are being collated and will be furnished in due course.

5. Thus Respondents described invoices as unilateral documents which are not countersigned or acknowledged by the Respondents in acceptance of alleged terms and conditions printed thereon including the arbitration clause.

6. However, perusal of the tax invoices would indicate that e same bear acknowledgments including stamps of the Respondents. It also appears that some of the invoices are also paid by the Respondents.

7. The law with regard to enforcement arbitration clause printed on an invoice is no more res integra. A Single Judge of this Court (Bharati Dangre, J.) in Bennett Coleman & Company Limited vs. MAD (India) Pvt. Ltd., Commercial Arbitration Application No.211 of 2022, decided on 22 December 2022 has considered various judgments on the issue and has held in paragraphs 10 to 15 as under:

10 It, therefore, becomes necessary to determine whether the present clause contained in a tax invoice, would be construed as an ‘arbitration clause’. The Bombay High Court in case of Lewis W. Fernandez vs Jivatlal Partapshi And Ors. AIR 1947 Bom 65, dealing with the Old Arbitration Act, on being con