Allowed

M/s.Aditya Enterprises v. M/s.Robo Silicon Private Limited.

Telangana HC23 Apr 2013ARBAPPL/100/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court addressed an application for appointing an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It held that a dispute regarding the quality of supplied goods constitutes a live arbitable issue under the contract, rejecting the argument for filing a civil suit. Accordingly, the application was allowed and an arbitrator was appointed.

What did the court decide?

Arbitration application allowed and Sri Y. Hamchander, Advocate appointed as arbitrator to fix fee.

M/s.Aditya Enterprises Vs M/s.Robo Silicon Private Limited. — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.100 of 2011

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

1. This Arbitration Application is filed under section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, for appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties with reference to the purchase orders dated 17-12-2010, 09-05-2011, 31-01-2011 and 04-03-2011. The applicant has accepted to supply Aprons. The petitioner claims to have supplied the goods as per the purchase orders and part payment was made by the respondent but with regard to some of the deliveries under the purchase orders, the payment was not made on the ground that the standard, as agreed to be maintained was not adhered, therefore, the respondent is not liable to pay the amount.

¶4

2 . The counsel for the respondent contends that the arbitration clause, though contained in the purchase order, does not survive for consideration since under the provisions of Sale of Goods Act, when the delivery has been given, the contract is concluded and if at all the petitioner has to get the value of the said goods, he has to take recourse to only the general law by filing a suit in Civil Court and therefore, the need for arbitration does not arise.

¶5

3. I feel that the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent cannot be considered. Evidently, the dispute between the parties is with regard to the quality of the goods that have been supplied. This is an issue which has to be evidently decided with reference to the arbitration agreement between the parties as

¶6

stipulated under the purchase orders. Therefore, when once this dispute is resolved, then the question of payment of money arise. It cannot be said when a live dispute with regard to the quality is unilaterally decided by the respondent, the petitioner cannot invoke the arbitration clause.

¶7

4. I find no substance in the objection and therefore, in view of the above circumstances, I find that there is a live arbitable dispute and accordingly, Sri Y. Hamchander, Advocate is appointed as an arbitrator and he shall fix the fee.

¶8

5. Accordingly, the Arbitration Application is allowed.

¶9

N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J

¶10

Dated: 23.04.2013

¶11

eha/ka

¶12

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶13

ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.100 of 2011

¶14

23-04-2013

¶15

eha

M/s.Aditya Enterprises v. M/s.Robo Silicon Private Limited.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Aditya Enterprises v. M/s.Robo Silicon Private Limited.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Ramani IceCream Company Ltd, Vs Mrs.Vijaya Reddy

M/s Arudra Constructions Vs Salar Jung Museum

Saravana Aaawas Pvt. Ltd., Vs Smt. Parvathaneni Vijaya Rajyalakshmi

Sangavarapu Chenchu Venkata Ramachandra Prabhu Vs Jonna Seethamma

P. Subba Rao (Died) Vs The Secretary

Sri K. Hari Prasad, Vs Sri Kothapally Murali Chary