Allowed

Goyal Arts Partner Rakesh Goyal S/O Shree Mani Shankar Goyal v. Anu Overseas India

Rajasthan HC19 May 2023ARBAP/144/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 11(8) application, the Rajasthan High Court appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate a commercial dispute regarding non-delivery of goods. The court addressed objections from a respondent acting solely as a middle agent, holding that their liability would be determined by the arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Applicant's Section 11(8) application allowed; Justice S.K. Keshote appointed as sole arbitrator. Arbitration costs to be paid as per Fourth Schedule of the Act.

Goyal Arts Partner Rakesh Goyal S/O Shree Mani Shankar Goyal… — Arbitration | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/011477]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Arbitration Application No. 144/2021

¶4

Goyal Arts Partner Rakesh Goyal S/o Shree Mani Shankar Goyal, Resident Of 1/34-35 Manglam Vidyadhar Nagar, Opp. Agarwal Caterers, Jaipur, 302039 (Rajasthan)

¶5

----Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Anu Overseas India, No. 2139, M.I.E. Part-B Dist Jhajjar, Bhadurgarh, Haryana, India - 124507 Through Director Harikishan Singh.

¶8

Second Address :- 101, Kailana Khas Tehsil – Gohana Sonipat Haryana 131301. Mobile No. 7020050519.

¶9

Crystal Sourcing Inc, C-37, Sector-63, Noida - 201301 (Up) India Through Director Jasmeet Kaur

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Applicant(s) : Mr.Ram Chandra Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Aditya Surollia, Adv.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order

¶13

19/05/2023

¶14

The instant arbitration application has been filed under Section 11(8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter read as ‘the Act of 1996).

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a partnership firm and third party agreement was executed by the applicant-firm on 04.02.2021 in which the applicant was a buyer and the respondent No.1 – Anu Overseas India was the selling firm and Jasmeet Kaur’s firm Crystal Sourcing Inc acted as a middle agent between the two parties.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant in pursuance of the agreement dated 04.02.2021,

[2023/RJJP/011477]

[ARBAP-144/2021]

(2 of 5)

applicant-firm (Buyer) agreed for purchase of 96,000 Boxes of Nitrile Gloves of World Gloves from selling firm (seller).

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per the agreement first party was to give Rs.510.51 per Box as per the condition prescribed after a mutual understanding arrived at between the three parties and as such packing of the box was to be done by the parties according to Indian Standard.

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant paid advance amount of Rs.45,00,000/- and rest of the amount was to be paid at the time of delivery of the goods. Learned counsel submitted that in spite of agreed date of delivery, the terms and conditions were not complied with and delivery of the goods by the selling firm, was also not done on time.

¶23

Learned counsel submitted that on account of dispute between the parties, the applicant sent a legal notice dated 06.09.2021, demanding the outstanding amount and further requested to resolve the dispute by appointment of a Retired Judge of the High Court an arbitrator.

¶24

Learned counsel submitted that no reply was received of the legal notice sent by the applicant and as such he is constrained to approach this Court.

¶25

This Court finds that service of respondent No.1 has been effected and at one point of time learned counsel also appeared on his behalf, however, today no one has appeared on his behalf.

¶26

Learned counsel Mr.Aditya Surolia appears on behalf of the respondent No.2.

[2023/RJJP/011477]

[ARBAP-144/2021]

(3 of 5)

Learned counsel submitted that the respondent No.2, in no manner, is concerned with the dispute, which has arisen between the applicant and the respondent No.1.

¶31

Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged violation of conditions of the agreement ipso-facto will not result into appointment of an arbitrator and since the respondent No.2 was only a middle agent not a contracting party, hence the middle agent is not bound by the terms and conditions of the said agreement.

¶32

Learned counsel submitted that if any responsibility of paying the outstanding amount has arisen, the same is not required to be satisfied by the non-applicant No.2 in the third party agreement as they had not agreed to pay anything.

¶33

Learned counsel further submitted that the non-applicant No.2 has not received any amount at any point of time from the applicant and as such the non-applicant No.2 has wrongly been arrayed as a party respondent in the present misc. application.

¶34

I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶35

I have also gone through the Clause 12 of the Third Party Agreement and it clearly provides that all the disputes arising out of or in connection with this contract or any alleged breach thereof, such disputes were required to be referred for arbitration in India and such arbitration was to be conducted in accordance with the Rules and Guidelines of the International Chamber of Commerce.

[2023/RJJP/011477]

[ARBAP-144/2021]

(4 of 5)

This Court finds that the applicant had also sent a notice to the respondent No.1 before filing the present application and since no reply has been received, this Court has to accept the averments made by the applicant in his application as well as in the notice which was sent to the respondents, raising the grievance for appointment of an arbitrator to be a correct method by invoking the arbitration proceedings.

¶40

The objection of the respondent No.2 that he was only a middle agent and he was not liable in any manner to pay any amount on account of alleged violation of third party agreement, this Court finds that the applicant and the respondent No.2 have agreed to execute the third party agreement and the non applicant No.2 has also been made middle agent, rights of the claimant and the non applicant will be decided by the arbitrator after considering the objections, which may be raised by all the parties.

¶41

This Court, accordingly, allows the present arbitration applications filed by the applicant, while exercising the power conferred under Section 11 (5) read with Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996, appoints Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.K.Keshote, (Former Judge), 10 Eden Garden, Flat No.302, Bajaj Nagar Enclave, Near Gandhi Nagar Railway Station, Jaipur as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The payment of cost of arbitration proceedings and arbitration fee shall be made as per the 4^th Schedule appended to the Act of 1996.

¶42

The intimation of appointment, as aforesaid, may be given by the counsel for the parties as well as by the Registry to Hon’ble

[2023/RJJP/011477]

[ARBAP-144/2021]

(5 of 5)

Mr.Justice S.K.Keshote, (Former Judge), 10 Eden Garden, Flat No.302, Bajaj Nagar, Enclave, Near Gandhi Nagar Railway Station, Jaipur.

¶47

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J

¶48

Monika/36

Goyal Arts Partner Rakesh Goyal S/O Shree Mani Shankar Goyal v. Anu Overseas India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goyal Arts Partner Rakesh Goyal S/O Shree Mani Shankar Goyal v. Anu Overseas India

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

Samarth Lifestyle Retailing Pvt. Ltd. through Authorized Signatory Having Its Registered Office Vs Inceptra Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd.

Samarth Lifestyle Retailing Pvt. Ltd. through Authorized Signatory Having Its Registered Office Vs Inceptra Retail India Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Inceptra Retail India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Iconic Fashion Retailing Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Globus Spirits Limited, Vs Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited

M/S Choudhary Enterprises Vs Union of India Thr Gen Manager and Anr.

M/S Shoolin Finance through Its Partner Shri Ritesh Dalmia, Vs Shriram Generics a Proprietorship Firm