The High Court dismissed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator. The court held the dispute related to pre-agreement dues and involved minimal subsequent transactions, awarding no relief.
Arbitration application dismissed without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGHCOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY,THETHIRTIETHDAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICEUJJAL BHUYAN
ARBITRATION APPLICATIONNO:1 40 0F201 I
Between:
Ylai S,I',fJ.,.!fi..,ld,f r,. :xJ'3,[x!:8'ils"?i::L"J,Xi l - -' * "1^l l l; X,
AND
Ir,4/s lnternationalPaper Appm Ltd , 8'n Floor' Krishe Sapohire Buildings'No-1- B9/3/B4O To42lKS/801, nit"if,dit'V-ftriin n,iaO,rleat lmage Hospital' Madhapur' Hyderabad- 500081, Telangana ...RES'ONDENT
...RES'ONDENT
ApplicationunderSection 1 1 (6) of the Arbitration and ConciliationAct'1996 and Schemeof Appointment of Arbitrators'2000 prayingthat in the circumstances stated inthe affidavitfiled therewith'the High Court maybe pleased to appoint Sole Arbitratorfor adjudicating the disputes between the parties and to pass an award thereonby him, for resolvingall orany disputes' difference' m isunderstanding s betweenthe parties to the list arising out of or in relation to the ServiceAgreementdt.ll-0l.20l4and,byallowingthisapplicationinfavourofthe Applicant andagainst the Respondents with exemplary costs
The applicationcoming on for hearing' uponperusingthe Applicationand affidavit filedin support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of tvls' Trupthi Agarwal, Advocatefor the Applicant and of Sri Vedula Srinivas'Advocatefor the Respondent
The Courtmade the following: ORDER
,t
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICEUJJAL BHUYAN ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. 14O OF 2019
ORDER:
Heard Ms.TrupthiAgarwal, learned counselfor the applicant and Mr.Vedula Srinivas,learned senior counsel forthe respondent.
2 This is an application underSection1 1 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996(briefly, 'the 1996 Act', hereinafter) for appointment of arbitrator.
3 According to the applicant,applicantis engaged in providing services of customshouseat Chennaifor storage of imported materials. It is statedthat respondentis engaged in the business of paper mi11s andin the course of business had usedthe premises of the applicantfor storage ol importedmaterials' In this connection there wereoutstandingdues payable by the respondent to the applicant.Applicant had ca1led upon the respondent, videletter dated 15 03.20 1O to clear the outstanding dues for theyear 2OO8-09. This was foilowed by subsequent letters datedl2.O7.2OlBand 30.08.2018'By the letter dated !
:
12.07.2018 applicantstated that respondent was liable to pay an amount of Rs.16,00,028-00to theapplicant which was outstanding forlast several years. Since the payments were not
4
2
made, request was made to respondent No.1 to refer the matter to arbitration. As there was no response, present application has been filed
4 Learned counsel for the applicant has relerred to the service agreement entered into between the applicalt and the respondent on 11.01.2014 and submits that Clause 23 thereof provides for dispute resolution. As per Clause 23, any dispute between the parties to the agreement or its interpretation should be referred to arbitration under the i 996 Act. She further submits that the effective date of the agreement is 01.07.2013. Therefore, parties may be referred to arbitration for which this Court may appoint an arbitrator.
5 Learned senior counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that respondent has filed counter affidavit. He submits that claim of the petitioner pertains to the year 2OOg-09, whereas the agreement was entered into between the pa_rties on 11.O7.2014. When the dispute arose there \ ras no agreement between the parties including an arbitration agreement. He has also referred to the bank statement of the applicant and submits l therefrom that the entire transactions lor which reference to arbitration is sought for culminate d on 24.o3.200g on which date there was no agreement between the parties.
3
6 Hou'ever, learned counsel for the applicant submits that even a-fter 01.07.2013, which is the effective date of the agreement, there were several transactions between the parties.
7 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer made by the applicant. As per the averments made in paragraph No.4 of the supporting affidavit, the dispute in question i.e. payment of outstanding dues pertain to the year 2008_09 when admittedly there was no agreement binding the two parties. Even if the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that there were subsequent transactions which may be covered by the service agreement is accepted, even then also there are hardly seven or eight transactions from 02.08.20 13 to 10.0i.2014 which would roughly be in the range of Rs.3O,O00-OO to Rs.40,OOO_OO. That being the position, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as sought for by the applicant.
8 Consequently, this arbitration application is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this application, shall also stand dismissed.
SdIB.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOIN REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/I
SECTION OFFICER
To 1. One CC to Ms.TrupthiAgaruval,Advocate lO-?y!) 2. One CC to SriVedula Srinivas,Advocate (OPUU) a Two CD CoPies 4. One SpareCoPY Kj 9- ^
I
HIGH COURT
DATED:30/03/2022
-irL si
/.
a)J 0 4 MAY 2022
Dt-,
_
ORDER
ARBITRATION APPLICATIONNo'140of 2019
DISMISSING THE ARBITRATION APPLICATION WITHOUT COSTS.
t-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether disputes arising from transactions before the execution of the service agreement fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.
Whether the arbitration application should be granted given the nature and quantum of transactions covered by the agreement.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ylai S,I',fJ.,.!f<i..,ld,f r,. :xJ'3,[x!:8'ils"?:i::L"J,Xi l
Ir,4/s lnternational Paper Appm Ltd
Ujjal Bhuyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
