Disposed

Ramanand Yadav v. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC21 Nov 2017ARB.P./487/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a matter concerning a distributorship dispute governed by a binding arbitration agreement, while the respondent challenged maintainability due to non-invocation of the arbitration clause, the Court ordered reference of the dispute to the International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution for appointment of an arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Parties referred to the International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ICADR) to appoint an Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes.

Ramanand Yadav Vs Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~23

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 487/2017 RAMANAND YADAV ..... Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr.Rajesh Manchanda, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Priya Kumar, Mr.Adhish Srivastava, Advs.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 21.11.2017

¶11

The dispute between the parties have arisen out of contract of distributorship entered into between them on 29^th October, 2012. Clause 15 of the agreement provides as under:-

¶12

“15) Any dispute, differences or claim arising out of as in connection with this Agreement shall be submitted to binding arbitration and shall be referred to the sole Arbitrator appointed in accordance with the rules and regulations of International Center for Alternate Dispute Resolution at a fast track arbitration. The venue of such arbitration shall be at New Delhi and the award of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on all parties. The courts at New Delhi shall alone have jurisdiction in relation to this Arbitration Agreement and any award arising therefrom.”

¶13

The petitioner had sent a notice dated 13^th January, 2017 raising various disputes to the respondent which was replied by the respondent through its lawyers on 8^th March, 2017.

¶14

Upon notice being issued by this Court, counsel for the respondent has entered appearance. She submits that the petition is not maintainable under Section 11 of the Act as the Arbitration Clause has not been invoked by the petitioner in terms thereof, however, without prejudice, she submits that she would have no objection if the parties are referred to The International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ICADR’) for adjudication of the disputes between the parties.

¶15

Accordingly, the parties are referred to the ICADR with the request to ICADR to appoint an Arbitrator in accordance with its Rules and Regulations for adjudication of the disputes.

¶16

The parties would be entitled to raise all their claims and counter claims before the Arbitrator so appointed.

¶17

The petition is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.

¶18

Dasti.

¶19

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶20

NOVEMBER 21, 2017 RN

Ramanand Yadav v. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramanand Yadav v. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

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

Ganesh Construction through Its Proprietor Vs M/S Slv Infrastructre

Emco Ltd. Vs Delhi Transco Ltd. & Anr.

Maya Rani Singal Vs Hardeep Singh

Cairn India Limited Vs Videocon Industries Ltd. & Ors.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Ravi Kumar

Madhu Sudhan Kumar Bhagat Vs Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd. & Anr.