Allowed

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

Rajasthan HC12 May 2023ARBAP/5/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan disposed of connected arbitration applications by deciding S.B. Arbitration Application No.3/2023 as the lead case. The Court addressed objections raised by the respondent based on their separate applications against the applicants' sister concerns. Finding that a valid arbitration agreement existed, the Court allowed the application and appointed a retired Chief Justic

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq (Retired Chief Justice), Jaipur, as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute.

Samarth Lifestyle Retailing Pvt. Ltd. through Authorized… — Arbitration | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Arbitration Application No.3/2023

¶3

M/s Inceptra Retail India Pvt. Ltd.

¶4

M/s. Inceptra Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd.,

¶5

All having their Regd. Office At Plot No.312, Basement and Ground Floor, Udyog Vihar Phase-2, Gurgaon122015, through its Authorised Representative Mr.Amit Yadav, S/o Dhrambeer Yadav, Aged 33 Yrs. R/o Goliyaka, Punshika(56), Rewari, Haryana.

¶6

----Applicants/Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Iconic Fashion Retailing Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Regd. Office At 601 6^th Floor Ganga Heights SB 154 Lal Kothi, Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur-302015.

¶9

---- Non Applicant-Respondent

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Arbitration Application No.5/2022

¶12

Samarth Lifestyle Retailing Pvt. Ltd. through Authorized Signatory having its Registered Office, At 601, 6^th Floor, Ganga Heights SB-154, Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur-302015 (Raj.)

¶13

----Applicant-Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

Inceptra Retail India Pvt. Ltd., having its Regd. Office At Plot No.436, 4^th Floor, Block-C, Jwala Mill Road, Udyog Vihar, PhaseIV, Sec-18, Gurgaon, Haryana-122015, through its Director

¶16

----Respondent

¶17

S.B. Arbitration Application No.6/2022

¶18

Samarth Lifestyle Retailing Pvt. Ltd. Through Authorized Signatory Having Its Registered Office, At 601, 6^th Floor, Ganga Heights SB-154, Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur-302015 (Raj.)

¶19

----Petitioner

¶20

Versus

¶21

Inceptra Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd., having its Regd Office at 436, UV PH-4, Gurugram Gurgaon HR 122001 IN through its Director.

¶22

Loomtree Fashion Lifestyle Pvt Ltd., having its Regd.

¶23

[ARBAP-3/2023]

¶24

(2 of 5)

¶25

Office at Plot No.436, 4^th Floor, Block-C, Jwala Mill Road, Udyog Vihar Phase-IV, Sec-18, Gurgaon HR 122015 IN through its Director.

¶26

----Respondents

¶27

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Shashank Agarwal, Adv. with Ms.Mahima Kirori, Adv.

¶28

For Respondent(s) : Mr.Aditya Vijay, Adv. & Mr.Roshan Sharma, Adv. for Mr.Anuroop Singhi, Adv.

¶29

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶30

Order

¶31

12/05/2023

¶32

The issue involved in the present arbitration applications is similar in nature and the facts of S.B. Arbitration Application No.3/2023 are taken as lead case and as such, they are decided by this common order.

¶33

The instant arbitration application ( S.B. Arbitration Application No.3/2023 ) has been filed by the applicants under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter ‘the Act of 1996’) for appointment of an Arbitrator.

¶34

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are engaged in the business of manufacturing, retailing, and distributorship of wearing apparels through various outlets under different private names and as such, the applicants enjoyed in giving representation for maintaining high standards of quality and service.

¶35

Learned counsel submitted that the respondent is engaged in the business of display, distributorship and supply in

¶36

[ARBAP-3/2023]

¶37

(3 of 5)

¶38

respect of readymade garments, clothing and retail chain stores, wholesale and retail outlets.

¶39

Learned counsel submitted that the respondent had approached the applicants for displaying and marketing the products of the applicants and as such, the applicants agreed to supply their products and accordingly they entered into an agreement with the respondent on 05.10.2017 on Sale or Return (SOR) basis.

¶40

Learned counsel submitted that the business between the parties was running smoothly until the month of September, 2019 and as such, dispute arose between the applicants and the respondent relating to some dues of GST payment and retail showroom security deposit, etc.

¶41

Learned counsel submitted that though the officials of both the parties tried to reconcile their account, however, account was not settled finally between the parties and as such, the applicants requested the respondent to resolve the dispute and finally when no response was received, the applicants had to send a notice on 12.04.2021 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 28 of the agreement.

¶42

Learned counsel submitted that the respondent replied back on 26.04.2021 and they denied the agreements and transactions which have taken place between the parties and as such, prayer of appointment of an Arbitrator was also not agreed by the respondent.

¶43

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants faced with such a situation, have approached this Court for exercising its power for appointment of independent Arbitrator.

¶44

(4 of 5) [ARBAP-3/2023]

¶45

Reply to the arbitration application has been filed by the respondent.

¶46

The respondent has submitted that it was the applicants who did not comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement, which was entered into between the parties and since the applicants failed to honour their obligation to pay minimum guarantee, the fault lies at the door of the applicants.

¶47

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent had replied back to the various requests received from the applicants and it is incorrect that no response was given by the respondent in respect of demand raised by the applicants.

¶48

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that though reply has been filed opposing the prayer for seeking appointment of an Arbitrator, however, the respondent has also filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996 against the sister concerns of the applicant for appointment of Arbitrator. The applicants and their sister concerns were unable to pay the due amount to the tune of Rs.7,41,39,679/- along with interest.

¶49

Learned counsel for the respondent was asked by this Court as they themselves have filed Arbitration Application Nos.5/2022 and 6/2022 and as such, prayer of appointment of Arbitrator should not be opposed before this Court.

¶50

This Court finds that the applicants as well as the respondent/s have entered into the different agreement and as per submission made in the arbitration applications, the dispute has arisen between the parties and this Court finds that in S.B. Arbitration Application No.3/2023, the agreement executed

¶51

(5 of 5) [ARBAP-3/2023]

¶52

between the parties has been placed on record and Clause 28 of the said agreement provides, to refer the dispute and differences between the parties to the Arbitrator in accordance with the Act of 1996.

¶53

This Court accordingly finds that objection raised by the counsel for the respondent needs to be rejected and as such, the application filed by the applicant, deserves to be allowed.

¶54

This Court, accordingly, allows the present arbitration application filed by the applicant while exercising the power conferred under Section 11 of the Act of 1996, appoints Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq (Retired Chief Justice), R/o 7, Bhagat Vatika, Civil Lines, Jaipur, as the 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.

¶55

The intimation of appointment, as aforesaid, may be given by the counsel for the parties as well as by the Registry to Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq (Retired Chief Justice), R/o 7, Bhagat Vatika, Civil Lines, Jaipur.

¶56

A copy of this order be placed in each arbitration application.

¶57

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J

¶58

Himanshu Soni/44-46

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Smt Nirmala Poonglia and Ors. Vs J D a and Ors.

Smt Nirmala Poonglia and Ors. Vs J D a and Ors.

Himanshu Agnihotri Son of Shri S.N. Agnihotri Vs M/S Saraswati Press

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

M/S Vintage Distillers Limited Vs Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited

Patil Rail Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ministry of Railway