Disposed

Eicher Motors Ltd. v. M/S Hanumant Motors & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Mar 2012ARB/86/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought appointment of an arbitrator under an agreement prescribing Delhi as the seat of arbitration. Despite Delhi being outside this court's jurisdiction, the bench appointed the arbitrator to proceed with the reference.

What did the court decide?

Shri Charanjit Jawa appointed as arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties under the fitness of the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Arbitrator's Panel and Fee) Rules, 2011.

Eicher Motors Ltd. Vs M/S Hanumant Motors & Ors. — Arbitration | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Arb. Case No 86 of 2011 Date of decision of : 23.3.2012

¶3

Eicher Motors Limited …..Petitioner

¶4

vs.

¶5

M/s Hanumat Motors and ors …..Respondents

¶6

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

¶7

Present: - Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶8

HEMANT GUPTA, J

¶9

Petitioner is a company engaged in the manufacture of motor cycles and spares through its business unit “Royal Enfield Motors” (A unit of Eicher Limited) from its plants at Tiruvottiyur and Jaipur.

¶10

Petitioner entered into a dealership agreement with the respondent on 5.12.2001, whereby the respondents was appointed as a dealer on the terms and conditions mentioned therein containing an arbitration clause. The relevant arbitration clause reads as under: -

¶11

“30. Arbitration & Jurisdiction

¶12

The parties hereto shall endeavor to settle by mutual conciliation any claim, dispute or controversy (“Dispute”) arising out of , or in relation to, this Agreement, including any Dispute with respect to the existence or validity hereof, the interpretation hereof, the activities performed hereunder, or the breach hereof. Any Dispute which cannot be so resolved through such conciliation within 30 days or such extended period as the parties may agree, shall be finally settled under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Rules made thereunder and any statutory modifications thereof in Delhi. The seat of arbitration shall always be at Delhi and the Courts of Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction in all matters arising under this Agreement.”

¶13

-2-

¶14

Arb. Case No. 86 of 2011

¶15

Earlier, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court for appointment of an arbitrator but such petition has been dismissed on 18.10.2010 (Anneuxre A-13) for the reason that no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the said Court. It is thereafter, the present petition has been filed.

¶16

None has put in appearance on behalf of respondents, even though respondents have been served by publication in Hindustan Times and Dainik Bhaskar, Published from Delhi after repeated attempts to serve the respondents personally remained unsuccessful.

¶17

In terms of the agreement between the parties, the dispute between the parties are required to be decided by an arbitrator. Consequently, Shri Charanjit Jawa, former District and Sessions Judge, Delhi resident of House No. 229, Vivekanand Puri, near Sarai Rohilla, Delhi is appointed as an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. The arbitrator shall be entitled to fee as per Punjab and Haryana High Court (Arbitrator's Panel and Fee) Rules, 2011.

¶18

Disposed of.

¶19

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE

¶20

23.3.2012 preeti

Eicher Motors Ltd. v. M/S Hanumant Motors & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eicher Motors Ltd. v. M/S Hanumant Motors & Ors.

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

Karam Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

M/S R.N. Metals Vs Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd.

M/S the Jevra Adarsh Coop L/C Society Ltd. Vs State of Haryana etc.

Crompton Greaves Ltd. Vs M/S Senco Power Agencies

M/S G.R.S. Health Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs R.S. Grewal

Punjab State Industrial Development Corportion Vs M/S Arihant Corporation Ltd. and Anr.