Allowed

Reach Logistics (P) Limited v. Bosch Limited

Karnataka HC21 Jul 2022CMP/414/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this petition under Section 11(4) and (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner sought appointment of a sole arbitrator for disputes arising from a 2008 Service Agreement. The respondent contested the claim as time-barred due to termination and delay in notices. The High Court rejected the time-bar argument at this stage and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. S. Siddalingesh, a retired District Judge, as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

Reach Logistics (P) Limited Vs Bosch Limited — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JULY 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.414/2022

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

REACH LOGISTICS (P) LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.173, NAVINS PRESIDIUM, B BLOCK, 9^TH FLOOR, NO.173, NELSON MANICKAM ROAD, AMINJIKARAI, CHENNAI 600029.

¶8

HAVING ONE OF ITS OFFICE AT

¶9

NO.8/3, F BLOCK, FIRST FLOOR, UNITY BUILDINGS, J.C.ROAD, BENGALURU 560 002 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DULY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. NARENDRA BABU.

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(By SRI. DEVARAJ K. S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND :

¶13

BOSCH LIMITED A COMPANY IN CORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, AND HAVING IT REGISTERED OFFICE, AT POST BOX NO.3000 HOSUR ROAD, ADUGODI,

¶14

¶15

BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. SOUMITRA BHATTACHARYA.

¶16

ALSO HAVING ITS SALES OFFICE AT NO.7, DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI 400 018.

¶17

... RESPONDENT

¶18

(By SRI.B.S. SANDEEP KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(4) AND (5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR FOR ADJUDICATING THE DISPUTES THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT, ARISING OUT OF SERVICE AGREEMENT DATED 01/11/2008 AT ANNEXURE-B, FOR ARBITRATION.

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner, who has signed the ‘Service Agreement' dated 1.11.2008 with the respondent which includes the agreement for resolution of the disputes by arbitration, has filed this petition for appointment of a sole arbitrator. The respondent does not deny the execution of the Service Agreement or the agreement for arbitration, but the respondent contends that the

¶23

¶24

petitioner's claim would be time barred. The respondent's contention is based on the assertion that the Service Agreement is terminated on 29.10.2015; all the dues are paid to the petitioner on 3.8.2017; the petitioner has issued the first demand notice on 6.10.2017 and the present petition is filed after issuance of notice dated 20.1.2022.

¶25

While the learned counsel for the respondent relies upon these circumstances to contend that the petitioner's claim is time barred, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that indeed a demand notice was issued on 6.10.2017 raising the claim. The respondent has issued an interim reply on 19.10.2017 but has not issued any response thereafter. As such, the petitioner has issued another legal notice on 18.09.2020 within time and has commenced proceedings before this Court in CMP No.260/2020 for appointment of a sole arbitrator. The petitioner has withdrawn the said

¶26

¶27

petition with liberty owing to an error in mentioning the details of the present Service Agreement in the said legal notice. The petitioner has once again issued notice dated 20.1.2022 for commencement of arbitral proceedings.

¶28

On careful consideration of the rival submissions, and the circumstances relied upon by the parties, this Court cannot opine, at this stage, that the petitioner's claim is time barred. Therefore, the petition must be allowed. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that any of the three retired District Judges nominated by the petitioner could be appointed as the sole arbitrator but with liberty to the respondent to raise all the contentions including the defense that the petitioner's claim is time barred.

¶29

For the foregoing, and in the light of the aforesaid submissions, the following:

¶30

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

a] The petition is allowed

¶33

[b] Mr. S. Siddalingesh, a retired District Judge, Address: No.759, 14^th Main, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, Bengaluru – 560 065, is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent and conduct the proceeding at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru according to the Rules governing the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru; and all questions are left open to be decided in the arbitral proceedings;

¶34

¶35

[c] The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru, and Mr. S. Siddalingesh, a retired District Judge, Address: No.759, 14^th Main, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, Bengaluru – 560 065, as required under the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Scheme, 1996.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

SA/Ct:sr

Reach Logistics (P) Limited v. Bosch Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reach Logistics (P) Limited v. Bosch Limited

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

Sri Shekar Vs Kumari Vijayalakshi S

M/S Century Shelters Vs Smt v Sujatha

M/S Vishwarupa Industries Ltd. Vs Sri a C Anantha Swamy

Smt. Harshitha Vs Sri S.Annadorai

Sri Mylaraiah Vs Smt Muni Siddamma

M/S Orb Energy Private Ltd. Vs Sri Durga Malleswari Education Society