JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. By way of present petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘A&C Act’), the petitioner seeks appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a Sole Arbitrator, to adjudicate upon the disputes that have arisen between the parties.

2. The respondent along with his son, Mr. Sumit Chauhan, entered into a business transaction with the petitioner wherein against the purchase orders issued the petitioner supplied alcoholic beverages to the respondent and his son. In pursuance of the same, various tax invoices were issued in the name of the respondent, either by the petitioner or by its subsidiary, associated or sister concerns/units and the subject goods were supplied thereof.

3. Disputes arose between the parties with respect to the various tax invoices dated 29.11.2020, 09.12.2020, 15.12.2020, 28.12.2020 and 22.01.2021. Under the ‘Terms & Conditions’ printed on the aforesaid invoices, Clause 5 provided for reference of disputes arising between the parties to arbitration by a Sole Arbitrator and further stipulated Delhi to be the seat of arbitration. The same is reproduced hereinunder:

“5. Any dispute (whether contractual or otherwise) arising out of this transaction between the parties or arising out of or relating to or in connection with this invoice shall be referred for arbitration in terms of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any amendment thereof. The arbitration shall be conducted by a sole arbitrator to be appointed by Radico Khaitan Limited in its sole discretion. The seat of Arbitration shall be Delhi. This invoice shall be governed the laws of India and Court of Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction over matters arising from this transaction/invoice. The Buyer shall be deemed to have accepted all terms and conditions contained in the invoice including the arbitration agreement by accepting the goods delivered under this invoice”

4. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of entering into the aforenoted business transactions, it was mutually agreed between the parties that all the business transactions between the parties will be governed as per the ‘Terms & Conditions’ printed on the subject invoices and that any dispute arising between the parties thereto, whether contractual or otherwise, shall be the referred to arbitration in terms of the provisions of the A&C Act.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner continuously supplied the subject goods to the respondent and his son, statedly to their satisfaction, against which, they made part-payments to the petitioner on a running account basis towards partial discharge of theiroutstanding liability. The petitioner even maintained record of all the transactions in the form of ledger account in regular course of business. It is further submitted that in March of 2022, the respondent’s son/Mr. Sumit Chauhan approached the petitioner to resume business transactions and agreed to make outstanding payment pending against him and the respondent. Subsequently, he issued a cheque bearing no. 100444 dated 15.03.2022 drawn on The Catholic Syrian Bank, Greater Kailash, New Delhi, for an amount of Rs. 18,16,155/- towards collective and complete discharge of the outstanding liability. However, upon presentation of the cheque at the bank, the same was dishonoured with the remarks, ‘funds insufficient’. Resultantly, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 18.06.2022 under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act (‘NI Act’) to Mr. Sumit Chauhan and thereafter, a complaint under Section 138 NI Act was filed against him. Disputes arose between the parties in the aforenoted context, following which, in regard to the respondent’s outstanding liability to the extent of Rs. 8,03,621/-, the petitioner issued a notice dated 05.02.2024 invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the A&C Act.

Learned counsel submits that the arbitration clause, as contained in