LexETOILE CREATIONS versus SARL DANSET DECO
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H [2016] 3 S.C.R. 478 ETO!LE CREATIONS v. SARL DANSET DECO (Arbitration Application (Civil) No. 4of2015) JULY 25, 2016 [T.S. THAKUR, CJI, R. BANUMATHI AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: s.11 (5) rlw s. 11 (9) - Petition for appointment of sole arbitrator - In the instant case, it is · evident from the petition that the disputes arose between the parties and in view of arbitration agreement, disputes could be resolved only by way of arbitration - Thus, petition is allowed - A Former Judge of Delhi High Court appointed as a sole arbitrator for adjudication of disputes. Allowing the petition, the Court HELD: L As is evident from the averments in the petition, disputes have actually arisen between the parties in relation to the agreement and in view of Clause 14 such disputes could be resolved only by way of arbitration. Whether the respondent is bound to pay Euro 393916.95 alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum; whether the respondent has committed breach of Clause 2.2 of the agreement in- cancelling the orders; whether the respondent is liable to compensate for cancelling the orders and reimburse the cost and damages incurred by the petitioner; whether the respondent acted in violation of Clause 4.1 of 'Buyers Agreement' dated 18.10.2012 by diverting the orders to another agency and, if so, whether the respondent is liable to compensate the petitioner and such other incidental questions can be examined only by the arbitrator. When an arbitration agreement exists between the parties, the present petition under Section 11 (5) read with Section 11 (9) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, shall have to be allowed with appropriate directions. A Former Judge, Delhi High Court is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the 'Buyers Agreement' dated 478 ETOILE CREATIONS v. SARL DANSET DECO 479 18.10.2012 executed between them. [Paras 8, 9) [482-E-H; 483- A A-BJ CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Arbitration Application (Civil) No. 4 of2015 Vivek Gupta, Adv. for the Petitioner. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. BANUMATHI, J. I. In this petition under Secti0)1 11 (5) read with Section 11 (9) of the Arbitration and Conci I iation Act, 1996, the petitioner prays for the appointment of a sole arbitrator for adjudication of disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to 'Buyers Agreement' dated 18. I 0.20 I 2 executed between them. 2. Briefly stated case of the petitioner is as under:- Petitioner is a proprietorship firm having its registered office at C-29 I, Suraj Mal Vihar, Delhi. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing of products relating to home furnishing and upholstery etc., exclusively for the respondent since 2000. The respondent-SARL DANSET DECO is a concern having its office at 240 Rue De La Lys 59250, Halluin, France which is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of the product relating to home furnishing and upholstery and is the buyer of the products manufactured by the petitioner. Accordingly, a 'Buyers Agreement' was executed on I 8.10.20 I 2 at New Delhi between the petitioner and the respondent. As per the aforesaid agreement, the-petitioner has been selling/supplying its aforesaid products and the respondent has been buying/purchasing the products for resale/sale in the territory of France. There was a long business relationship since 2000, even prior to execution of the agreement and the petitioner was regularly supplying the products to the respondent. At the time of execution of the aforesaid agreement, it was acknowledged that the respondent owes a total amount of Euro 367814.80 as the outstanding amount. The details of the outstanding dues have been mentioned in Schedule-I of the 'Buyers Agreement'. The petitioner has alleged that as per the terms and conditions of the 'Buyers Agreement' dated 18.10.2012, the respondent did not release the said outstanding amount within seven days of the agreement. Despite numerous reminders for the payment of dues through e-mails, SMS messages exchanged between the parties during November 2012 to April 2013 and subsequent legal notices sent to the respondent, the respondent failed to pay the admitted dues of the petitioner. B c D E F G H 480 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.