Allowed

Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. v. Messers. Renaissance Infrastructure and 2 Others

Bombay HC3 Sept 2014ARBAP/190/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this arbitration application, the applicant sought appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Finding that the parties had an agreement and the respondents defaulted in appearing, the Court appointed a sole arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Mr. Naushad Engineer was appointed as a Sole Arbitrator and the application was disposed of.

Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Messers. Renaissance… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

arbap 190 of 2014 (945).sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.190 OF 2014

¶4

Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. … Applicant

¶5

versus

¶6

M/s. Renaissance Infrastructure and Ors. … Respondents

¶7

Mr. Abhishek Adke with Mr. Yogesh Chauvak i/by M/s. Legasis Partners, for Applicant.

¶8

None for Respondents.

¶9

CORAM: S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.

¶10

DATE: 3^rd SEPTEMBER, 2014

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

The above Arbitration Application is filed by the Applicant for the

¶13

following reliefs :

¶14

“a. that this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its power under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 be pleased to appoint a Sole Arbitrator for reference of the disputes between the parties hereto as per clause 19 of the said Agreement at Exhibit B hereto”;

¶15

Clause 19 of the Agreement executed between the parties dated 18-

¶16

10-2012 reads as under :

¶17

“If any dispute and/or difference arises between the parties hereto during the subsistence or thereafter, in connection with

¶18

1/4

¶19

ssp

¶20

arbap 190 of 2014 (945).sxw

¶21

the validity, interpretation, implementation or alleged material breach of any provision of this Agreement, the parties hereto shall endeavour to settle such dispute and/or difference amicably. In case of failure to resolve the dispute and/or difference amicably, the dispute and/or difference shall be referred to a sole arbitrator jointly to be appointed by both the parties hereto. The Arbitration proceedings shall be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any amendment thereto”.

¶22

As can be seen from Exhibit D onwards, the parties did try to resolve the disputes. Since the parties failed to arrive at any amicable resolution of the disputes, the Applicant by its letter dated 26-02-2014 invoked Clause 19(1) of the Agreement and suggested names of three individuals and requested the Respondents to concur to any one of the names suggested by the Applicant, failing which the Applicant shall be constrained to adopt appropriate legal proceedings for appointment of the sole arbitrator. As can be seen from Exhibit M to the Application, the said letter was returned back since the Respondent refused to accept service. In view thereof, the Applicant has taken out the above Application seeking the aforesaid relief.

¶23

On 28-08-2014, when the above Application was taken up for hearing, the learned Advocate for the Applicant informed the Court that the

¶24

2/4

¶25

ssp

¶26

arbap 190 of 2014 (945).sxw

¶27

Respondents are not appearing before the Court despite service. In view

¶28

thereof, this Court passed the following order :

¶29

“1. The learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant shall inform the Respondents by a letter that the above Application was called out today for hearing before this Court when none appeared for the Respondents. The matter is now placed for hearing on 3^rd September, 2014 and if the Respondents fail to appear before this Court on the adjourned date, the Court shall proceed to hear and pass appropriate orders in the Application in the absence of the Respondents.

¶30

2. The said letter along with a copy of this order shall be served on the Respondents by the Advocate for the Applicant by hand delivery. Stand over to 3^rd September, 2014”.

¶31

Pursuant to the said order, the Advocate for the Applicant has served a copy of the order dated 28-08-2014 on Respondent Nos.2 and 3 who are the partners of Respondent No.1. However, the Respondents have today failed to appear before the Court. The Respondents have not filed any Affidavit-inReply to the above Application.

¶32

From the aforestated facts, I am satisfied that there exits an agreement between the parties to refer their disputes arising out the Agreement dated 18-10-2012 to a sole arbitration. Despite the Applicant having invoked the Arbitration clause, the Respondents have failed and

¶33

3/4

¶34

ssp

¶35

arbap 190 of 2014 (945).sxw

¶36

neglected to respond to the same. The Respondents have also failed to appear before this Court despite specific orders passed by this Court dated 28-082014. In view thereof, the following order is passed :

¶37

(i) Mr. Naushad Engineer, Advocate, is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to decide the disputes arising out of the Agreement dated 18-102012 between the parties.

¶38

(ii) The above Arbitration Application is accordingly disposed of.

¶39

( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )

¶40

4/4

¶41

ssp

Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. v. Messers. Renaissance Infrastructure and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. v. Messers. Renaissance Infrastructure and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxman Gopichand Kariyaa Vs Eagle Agro Farm Pvt. Ltd.

Mr.Avtar Singh Sethi, Applicant Vs Subhash Inderjit Anand

Mrs. Ruhi Chauhan Vs Totem Infrastructure Limited

Gangadhar Shivram Shetty and Ors. Vs Diwakar Narayan Shetty

Krishnali Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.

Sweta Chetan Kothari and Kajal Ujjwal Sarin Vs Rajnikant R Salvi and 4 Ors.