Allowed

M/S National Engineering Industries Limited, v. M/S Gemus Engineering Limited

Rajasthan HC20 Jan 2023ARBAP/83/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application to constitute an arbitral tribunal under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Having ascertained that notice was duly served and the respondent declined to appear, the Court appointed a retired High Court judge as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate a commercial dispute arising from defective goods supplied pursuant to a purchase order conta

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prakash Gupta (Retired Judge) as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute.

M/S National Engineering Industries Limited, Vs M/S Gemus… — Arbitration | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Arbitration Application No. 83/2022

¶3

M/s National Engineering Industries Limited, A Company Registered Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At R.n. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata700001 And Manufacturing Unit At Khatipura Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302006 Through Its General Manager And Authorized Signatory Mr. Kumar Bankatesh S/o Shri S.k. Sinha Aged About 48 Years.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s Gemus Engineering Limited, A Public Company Incorporated In India And Registered Under The Companies Act, 1956, Having Its Registered Office Located At E/3/4 Gillander House 8, Ns Road, Kolkata, West Bengal-70001 India Through Its Director.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Sunil	Nath, Adv. with Ms.Palak
	Saxena,	Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: None.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶10

Order

¶11

20/01/2023

¶12

The present arbitration application has been filed by the applicant-petitioner for setting up an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter ‘the Act of 1996’) and further to refer the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents for adjudication before an Arbitrator.

¶13

This Court, had issued notices in the present arbitration application and when notices were not initially served, this Court had issued notices again by registered post as well as ordinary post.

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[ARBAP-83/2022]

¶16

This Court on 01.11.2022, after considering the Office report relating to service of the respondent-non applicant, found that service on the respondent-non applicant was completed and no counsel had appeared on behalf of the respondent-non applicant.

¶17

This Court, in view of the service being effected on the respondent and not finding anyone to appear on their behalf, is now required to consider the prayer made by the applicantpetitioner in the application.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner submitted that the applicant is engaged in manufacturing certain kinds of bearings and respondent-Company is also engaged in business of manufacturing and selling parts of bearings.

¶19

Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant issued various purchase order to the respondent and as per purchase order, the arrangements between the parties were to supply the components/adapters in accordance with the specified terms and conditions.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on receipt of several complaints from different customers, the petitionercompany informed the respondents about defective goods supplied to them and the same was not in accordance with the agreed specifications.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-company on various occasions asked the non-petitioner to adhere to the terms and conditions of the purchase order, however, the respondent-Company failed to comply with such terms.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the purchase order, which was signed between the parties, had

¶23

(3 of 3) [ARBAP-83/2022]

¶24

contained the clause for arbitration in respect of dispute and accordingly the petitioner had sent legal notice for invoking the arbitration clause and commencement of the Arbitration Proceedings under Section 21 of the Act of 1996.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of receiving notice, no reply was received and as such the applicantpetitioner is constrained to approach this Court.

¶26

I have seen the relevant Clause 11 of the Purchase Order, which has been agreed upon between the petitioner and the nonpetitioner for resolving the dispute by way of referring to the arbitration.

¶27

This Court finds that the respondents has neither filed any reply to the statutory notice nor has put in appearance before this Court and as such this Court finds that the application filed by the petitioner, needs to be allowed.

¶28

This Court, accordingly allows the present arbitration application filed by the applicant-petitioner and while exercising the power conferred under Section 11 of the Act of 1996, appoints Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prakash Gupta (Retired Judge), 41, Mahadev Nagar, Nandpuri, Hawa Sadak, 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.

¶29

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 Prakash Gupta (Retired Judge), 41, Mahadev Nagar, Nandpuri, Hawa Sadak, Jaipur.

¶30

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J

¶31

Monika/105

M/S National Engineering Industries Limited, v. M/S Gemus Engineering Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S National Engineering Industries Limited, v. M/S Gemus Engineering 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

Smt Rajesh Nehra D/O Shri Maturam Vs the State of Rajasthan

Gopesh Kumar Yadav S/O Shri Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Kanheya Lal Chandoliya Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ramniwas S/O Shri Ramkaran Vs State of Rajasthan

Superintending Engineer Public Works Department Vs Shri Shyoji Ram Kumavat Son of Shri Chhignaram

Muzammil Sayeed S/O Dr. Mohd. Sayeed Vs Sarokar Sansthan