Delhi District Court
Teknodome India Pvt. Ltd vs Cyder Electronics Llp on 30 November, 2024
CS (COMM) 1616/2023
TECHNODOM INDIA PVT LTD. Vs.
CYDER ELECTRONICS LLP
30.11.2024
ORDER
1. Order disposes off (i) an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and (ii) an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, both filed by the defendant.
2. Plaintiff's case in brief is that it is Private Limited Company, engaged in the marketing, selling and distribution of various electrical and consumer durables including mobile, IT accessories, consumer electronics. Defendant nos. 2 and 3, partners of defendant no.1 firm, are stated to have approached the plaintiff, representing themselves to be business entities dealing in consumer electrical products under the name and style of M/s Cyder Electricals LLP. It is averred that the defendant was appointed as an authorized distributor by the plaintiff. Subsequently, supplies of the goods are stated to have effected to the defendant and as per Statement of Account being maintained by the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.23,73,771.21/- remained outstanding as on 07.01.2023. The defendant is stated to have admitted their liability, however, neglected to clear the dues. Upon regular follow up, the defendant issued a cheque dated 05.04.2023 for Rs.2,00,000/-. However, the same was dishonoured upon presentation on account of insufficient funds. The plaintiff is stated to have issued a demand notice dated 03.05.2023 for a sum CS (Comm) 1616/23 Tecknodome India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cyder Electronic LLP Page no. 1 of 19 of Rs.23,73,771.21/- and in view of the neglect/failure of the defendant to make the payment, the plaintiff initiated Pre- Institution Mediation. The plaintiff subsequently filed the present suit for recovery.
3. It may be relevant here to mention that as far as territorial jurisdiction of this Court is concerned, the plaintiff has averred that certain payments were made by the defendant at HDFC Bank, Karol Bagh, Delhi Branch and as such, part of the cause of action has accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiff had, accordingly, sought a decree for recovery of money.
4. Defendant appeared and filed the written statement together with the applications under consideration. In the written statement, the defendant raked up the objections as to the suit having been filed without any cause of action as well as without any territorial jurisdiction with this Court. The defendant has also objected the filing of the suit on the ground that the Agreement for sale of goods have not been filed and that it is not a commercial dispute. The defendant had denied his liability to pay any dues including for the reason that any liability can only be ascertained after reconciliation of the accounts in view of multiple issues pending between the parties.
5. As far as application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is concerned, the same is premised on the ground that no cause of CS (Comm) 1616/23 Tecknodome India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cyder Electronic LLP Page no. 2 of 19 action has accrued to the plaintiff for filing the present suit and this Court does not have any territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.
6. The plaintiff, in their reply to the application, have reiterated their stand that in view of the fact that payments were also deposited at the HDFC Bank, Karol Bagh, Delhi Branch of the plaintiff, cause of action has also accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court as such, this Court is competent to try and entertain the present suit.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have through the record.
8. Main contentions of learned counsel for the applicant/defendant are that no cause of action has accrued in Delhi as neither the plaintiff, nor the defendant reside or have their businesses in Delhi; no business transaction has been transacted at Delhi; mere fact that certain payments were deposited with their banker in Delhi does not confer jurisdiction over Delhi Courts; the defendant operates from Tamil Nadu and the plaintiff has its full fledged business at Chennai wherefrom the goods were supplied to the defendant; invoices issued by the plaintiff, as placed alongwith the application, also indicate that the plaintiff had been themselves claiming the jurisdiction to be at Chennai, which is clearly printed on the invoices issued by the plaintiff; besides, it is impressed upon the Court that no cause of CS (Comm) 1616/23 Tecknodome India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cyder Electronic LLP Page no. 3 of 19 action has accrued as there had been no reconciliation of the accounts between the parties.
9. Main contentions of learned counsel for the plaintiff are that the application is not maintainable as the proviso does not deal with any objection to territorial jurisdiction; the plaintiff has categorically mentioned in the plaint that payments were deposited with the HDFC Bank, Karol Bagh, the banker of the plaintiff and as such, part of cause of action has accrued at Delhi.
10. It may be relevant here to mention that although there is a categorical assertion in the plaint that the defendant was appointed as their Distributor for some region in the State of Tamil Nadu, the plaintiff has not placed any document in this respect. The defendant, however, has placed on record an e-mail dated 09.09.2020 whereunder the Agreement and Form for appointment of the Distributor was sent to the defendant as an attachment to the e-mail. The fact that the e-mail with said attachment have been sent is not disputed.
11. Insofar as the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is concerned, the defendant side has relied upon the said Agreement, however, insofar as the present application is concerned, the applicant/defendant seems to have clearly steered away from the clause 15 of the said agreement. As a matter of fact, it appears that the defendant is CS (Comm) 1616/23 Tecknodome India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cyder Electronic LLP Page no. 4 of 19 resorting to pick and choose as far as said agreement is concerned. As far as the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is concerned, the defendant has relied upon clause 16 thereof, however, the defendant seems to be avoiding to commit itself to the fact that the said agreement also provides for exclusive jurisdiction with Delhi Courts.
12. Learned counsel for the applicant/defendant contended that even if it is assumed that certain payments were made in Delhi, the same would not be decisive as far as the territorial jurisdiction is concerned. It is his contention that the cause of action has entirely taken place at Chennai where not only the plaintiff and defendants are operating their business, but also the supplies were effected. Besides, it is pressed that the invoices also records that dispute shall be subject to Chennai jurisdiction.
13. The Court, however, would not subscribe to the said contention inasmuch as the agreement being relied upon by the defendants for the purposes of maintaining their application under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation, Act, 1996, clearly provides for exclusive jurisdiction with Delhi Courts. The clause 15 of the same is reproduced as under:-
"15. Governing Law 15.1 That this agreement shall be governed under the laws of Republic of India.
15.2 The parties agree that any disputes shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Courts at Delhi only. "
CS (Comm) 1616/23 Tecknodome India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cyder Electronic LLP Page no. 5 of 19
14. Clause 15 of the agreement asserts primacy over other places of jurisdiction where the cause of action might have accrued in part or substantially. Considering the fact that Clause 15 provides exclusive jurisdiction of Delhi Courts, coupled with the fact that certain payments are claimed to have been made at Delhi, would in itself be sufficient to infer that the Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.
15. Coming to the other limb of arguments i.e. the absence of any cause of action. A reading of the plaint shows that the plaintiff has filed the suit on the basis of amounts due as per its Accounts book, and after having explored the possibility of settlement in Pre-Institution Mediation. The defendant side cannot be heard to say that no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff. Absence of re-conciliation of accounts between the parties cannot imply that the cause of action did not accrue.
16. The application, thus, is unmerited on both the counts and is, accordingly, dismissed.
17. As far as application under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is concerned, the same is premised on Clause 16 of the Distributor Agreement, a copy whereof has been place alongwith the application under consideration. The said clause reads as under:-
"16. ARBITRATION 16.1. Any and all disputes between the Parties arising CS (Comm) 1616/23 Tecknodome India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cyder Electronic LLP Page no. 6 of 19 out of or in connection with this Agreement or its performance (including the validity of this Agreement) shall, so far as is possible, be settled amicably between the Parties 16.2. If a dispute arises, then at the request of either Party, the dispute shall be referred to Arbitration consisting of a Sole Arbitrator which shall be appointed by mutual consent of parties and in case no consensus over the appointment of Arbitrator through legal procedure.
16.3. The place of arbitration shall be New Delhi. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 2019 and Rules made there under, as amended from time to time. Arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in the English language. Proper law of the arbitration shall be Indian law and the award will be made under the laws of India. The Parties hereby agree that the courts at New Delhi shall be the courts of competent jurisdiction in order to deal with any matters relating to the arbitration proceedings, including the process of constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal.
16.4. The Arbitral Tribunal duly constituted in accordance with the terms of this Agreement shall remain in effect until a final arbitration award has been issued by the Arbitral Tribunal. The Award of the Arbitration shall be final and binding on the parties 16.5. During the period of submission of arbitration and thereafter until the granting of the award, both parties shall, except in the event of termination, continue to perform all their obligations under this Agreement without prejudice to a final adjustment in accordance with such award.
16.6 Each Party shall bear its respective costs relating to the arbitration proceedings subject to the final determination by the Arbitral Tribunal."
18. The applicant/defendant has sought 'dismissal' of the suit CS (Comm) 1616/23 Tecknodome India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cyder Electronic LLP Page no. 7 of 19 instead of reference of parties to the arbitration. Although Section 8 does not contemplate any dismissal of the suit, the Court proceeds to deal with the application inasmuch as the same cannot be deferred for any subsequent stage having regard to the nature of the application, the legislative mandate and the immediacy it warrants.
19. The applicant/defendant has placed reliance on the agreement for the purposes of the application under Section 8 averring that the said agreement was sent to the defendant as an attachment to the e-mail dated 09.09.2020 and that it is not disputed that the defendant had been appointed as the Distributor for a region in the State of Tamil Nadu. It is also averred that the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts from the Court and since the agreement clearly provides for settlement of disputes through arbitration, the present suit is not maintainable.
20. The plaintiff, in reply to the said application, is found to have disputed the existence of any valid and binding arbitration agreement on the grounds that the same is only a blank draft, unsigned and unstamped, even though the same was forwarded to the defendant under the e-mail dated 09.09.2020, no such agreement was ever executed. Besides, the same is objected on the ground that the applicant/defendant cannot be allowed to pick and chose considering the fact in para 'D' of the objections in the written statement, the defendant has denied the existence of any agreement themselves.
CS (Comm) 1616/23 Tecknodome India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cyder Electronic LLP Page no. 8 of 19
21. Main contentions of learned counsel for the applicant/defendant are- that in terms of clause 16 of the Distributor Agreement, the matter can only be settled through Arbitration and the plaintiff despite having clearly known about the Agreement, still chose to invoke the jurisdiction of Civil Court. The same is not permissible under the law and as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed; the defendant has placed on record the e-mail dated 09.09.2020 which is not disputed by the plaintiff; it does not matter whether any signed copy of the arbitration agreement has been placed on record or not inasmuch as, it is not necessary for the parties to sign the arbitration agreement, as is permissible under Section 7 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996; the plaintiff cannot wriggle out from its own document and cannot be heard to say that it appointed the defendant as a distributor without any agreement as the e-mail dated 09.09.22020 clearly stipulates that the said agreement is in respect of the appointment as a Distributor; Para 5 of the plaint clearly records that the defendant no.1 was appointed as an authorized distributor for supply of its product on credit basis; and, the plaintiff has not deliberately placed the Agreement on record.
22. Learned counsel for the applicant/defendant has relied upon following judgments in support of his contention:-
i. Madhu Sudan Sharma & Ors. Vs. Omaxe Ltd. [(2023) SCC OnLine Del 7136] CS (Comm) 1616/23 Tecknodome India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cyder Electronic LLP Page no. 9 of 19 ii. Shakti Bhog Foods Limited Vs. Kola Shipping Limited [(2009) 2 SCC 134] iii. Pravin Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Galaxy Infra and Engineering Pvt. Ltd. [(2021) 5 SCC 671] iv. Sushma Shiv Kumar Daga & Anr Vs. Madhukumar Ramkrishnaji Bajaj & Others [(2023) SCC OnLine 1683]
23. Main contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff are- that the application is ill-conceived inasmuch as there is no arbitration agreement as the agreement referred to under the e- mail dated 09.09.2020 was never executed; there is no proof placed on record that the defendant had sent the agreement after signing the same; the defendants cannot be allowed to play hot and cold at the same time inasmuch as in para 'D' of his written statement, Defendants have had denied execution of any agreement with the plaintiff and as such, cannot be heard to say that there is an arbitration agreement between the parties; the agreement which the defendant relies upon is a blank format which was never executed and as such, no reliance can be placed thereon, nor the clause 16 can be treated to be a valid or binding arbitration clause. Defendant also needs to prove the existence of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties and an attachment to the e-mail without proving execution of document would not suffice the purpose of Section 7 or 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
CS (Comm) 1616/23 Tecknodome India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cyder Electronic LLP Page no. 10 of 19
24. Time now to deal with the contentions.
25. The main plank of the applicant's argument is that the plaintiff cannot wriggle out of the agreement providing arbitration as it is the plaintiff's own document. The plaintiff side, however, has contended that the same is merely a format with blanks unfilled, and since the document was not signed or executed, the same is not a valid or binding arbitration agreement. The defendant, however, states that the formal or physical signing of the Agreement is not necessary in view of Section 7 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 as it permits that such a contract can be constructed from within the e- mails exchanged between the parties. There appears to be considerable force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant/defendant. However, the contention of the parties needs to be examined in greater detail.
26. The plaintiff side has invited the attention of the Court towards para 'D' of the preliminary objections of the written statement which reads as under:-
"D. That, without prejudice to the submissions made in the previous paragraph, assuming and not admitting that there exists and agreement for sale of goods/provision of services, the said agreement contains an arbitration clause. The Defendants have filed an Application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2015, before this Hon'ble Court, praying that the suit at hand may be referred to arbitration comprising of a sole arbitrator with the arbitral seat at Delhi, as found under the CS (Comm) 1616/23 Tecknodome India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cyder Electronic LLP Page no. 11 of 19 Distributor Agreement (comprising of an arbitration clause, i.e. Clause 16) contained in the electronic mail sent by the Plaintiff to the 2nd Defendant on 09.09.2020, which was acted upon by both the Plaintiff and the Defendants herein."
27. It is the submission of learned counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant cannot blow hot and cold as the defendants have themselves denied the execution of the agreement. The Court, however, cannot subscribe to such a contention having regard to the fact that it is the plaintiff's own document which have been admittedly sent to the defendants as an attachment to the e-mail dated 09.09.2020. The preliminary objection no. 'D' would not either dilute or otherwise diminish the inferences arising out of the fact that the plaintiff's own document provides for resolution of disputes through Arbitration.
28. Coming now to the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the document is blank format with unfilled blank spaces and also unstamped. The plaintiff side, accordingly, pressed that the Agreement was never executed or signed by the parties hence, the same is not valid and binding. However, considering the import of Section 7 and the law that the physical signing of the document is not necessary for an arbitration agreement to exist as it can be constructed from exchange of correspondence or other means of telecommunication, the fact that is is merely a blank format, cannot be decisive as to the non- existence of an arbitration agreement. The Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant have CS (Comm) 1616/23 Tecknodome India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cyder Electronic LLP Page no. 12 of 19 proceeded with the business transactions and there relationship as a principal and authorized Distributor stands admitted. In this respect, attention of the Court has also been invited towards para no.5 of the plaintiff, which reads as under:-
"5. That based upon the assurances/ representations and timely payment of Defendant No. 2 and 3, the Plaintiff Company appointed Defendant No. 1 i.e., M/S CYDER ELECTRONICS LLP as its authorized Distributor for the supply of its products on credit basis. That Defendants No. 2&3 are directly involved, liable, responsible & instrumental in day-to-day function of Defendant No. 1."
29. Para 6 of the plaint also records that goods were supplied to defendant on credit basis. The above admission concretizes the assumption that the said agreement was, as a matter of fact, acted upon even if it was not physically signed by both the sides.
30. Coming now to the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant needs to prove existence of a valid arbitration agreement and a mere attachment to the e-mail without proving execution of document would not suffice the purpose of Section 7 or 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
31. In Trident Limited vs. Anand Talc & Stratite Pvt. Ltd., [Arbitration No. 115 of 2016 (O & M), Decided on 18.10.2016] the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana observed as under:-
CS (Comm) 1616/23 Tecknodome India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cyder Electronic LLP Page no. 13 of 19 " 7. It is not necessary under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act of 1996') for an arbitration agreement to be signed by the parties. Sections 2(b) and 7 of the Act of 1996 read as under:-
2. Definitions.
1. In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires,-
a. ................
b. "arbitration agreement" means an agreement referred to in section 7;
7.Arbitration agreement.
1. In this Part, 'arbitration agreement' means an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not.
2. An arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement.
3. An arbitration agreement shall be in writing.
4. An arbitration agreement is in writing if it is contained in-
a. a document signed by the parties;
b. an exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or other means of telecommunication which provide a record of the agreement; or c. an exchange of statements of claim and defence in which the existence of the agreement is alleged by one party and not denied by the other.
5. The reference in a contract to a document containing an arbitration clause constitutes an arbitration agreement if the contract is in writing and the reference is such as to make that arbitration clause part of the contract."
8. Sub section (1) of Section 7 merely defines an arbitration agreement. Sub section (2) merely states that an arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in the CS (Comm) 1616/23 Tecknodome India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cyder Electronic LLP Page no. 14 of 19 contract or in the form of a separate agreement. The purchase order is a contract. The purchase order communicated by the e-mail dated 22.09.2014 incorporated the terms and conditions contained in the attachment thereto. The terms and conditions, therefore, formed a part of the purchase order. A contract in terms, thereof, had been arrived at for the respondent accepted the same and acted pursuant thereto having actually supplied the goods and raised its invoices in respect thereof. Sub section (2) merely requires the arbitration agreement to be in writing. It does not require either the contract or the arbitration clause contained therein to be signed. A valid contract between the parties under them Contract Act does not have to be signed."
Admittedly the arbitration agreement in this case containing the terms and conditions, which form the part of the purchase order, is in writing.
.......
10. The case before me also falls under sub section (5) of Section 7 of the Act of 1996. The purchase order is a contract. There is a reference in this contract to a document i.e. the attachment to the e-mail and that document admittedly contains an arbitration clause. The terms and conditions attached to the e-mail is a document. Accordingly, the attachment to the e-mail is the document referred to in the purchase order i.e. the e-mail itself and that document i.e. the attachment contains an arbitration clause. Sub section (5) of Section 7 recognizes the doctrine of incorporation of one document into another. Neither of these documents is required to be signed by the parties thereto. Once the Court comes to the conclusion that the contract is entered into and that contract contains an arbitration agreement, it is sufficient to constitute a valid agreement to refer the disputes and differences between the parties to arbitration."
32. Before proceeding further, a reference to the scope of enquiry under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 appears to be desirable.
CS (Comm) 1616/23 Tecknodome India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cyder Electronic LLP Page no. 15 of 19
33. In Vidya Drolia & Ors. Vs.Durga Trading Corporation & Ors [2020 (12) ADJ 359], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as under:-
"173. Before we part, the conclusions reached, with respect to question No. 1, are:
a. Sections 8 and 11 of the Act have the same ambit with respect to judicial interference.
b. Usually, subject matter arbitrability cannot be decided at the stage of Sections 8 or 11 of the Act, unless it's a clear case of deadwood.
c. The Court, Under Sections 8 and 11, has to refer a matter to arbitration or to appoint an arbitrator, as the case may be, unless a party has established a prima facie (summary findings) case of non-existence of valid arbitration agreement, by summarily portraying a strong case that he is entitled to such a finding.
d. The Court should refer a matter if the validity of the arbitration agreement cannot be determined on a prima facie basis, as laid down above, i.e., 'when in doubt, do refer'.
e. The scope of the Court to examine the prima facie validity of an arbitration agreement includes only:
a. Whether the arbitration agreement was in writing? or b. Whether the arbitration agreement was contained in exchange of letters, telecommunication etc?
c. Whether the core contractual ingredients qua the arbitration agreement were fulfilled?
d. On rare occasions, whether the subject- matter of dispute is arbitrable?"
34. Subsequently in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. M/s Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd. [AIR 2021 Supreme court 2849] CS (Comm) 1616/23 Tecknodome India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cyder Electronic LLP Page no. 16 of 19 and NTPC Ltd. Vs. M/s SPML Infra Ltd. [Civil Appeal No.4778/2022 dated 10.04.2023], the said principles were reiterated.
35. In NTPC Ltd. Vs. M/s SPML Infra Ltd. [Civil Appeal No.4778/2022 dated 10.04.2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as under:-
"27. The standard of scrutiny to examine the non- arbitrability of a claim is only prima facie. Referral courts must not undertake a full review of the contested facts; they must only be confined to a primary first review and let facts speak for themselves. This also requires the courts to examine whether the assertion on arbitrability is bona fide or not. The prima facie scrutiny of the facts must lead to a clear conclusion that there is not even a vestige of doubt that the claim is non- arbitrable. On the other hand, even if there is the slightest doubt, the rule is to refer the dispute to arbitration.
The limited scrutiny, through the eye of the needle, is necessary and compelling. It is intertwined with the duty of the referral court to protect the parties from being forced to arbitrate when the matter is demonstrably non-arbitrable. It has been termed as a legitimate interference by courts to refuse reference in order to prevent wastage of public and private resources. Further, as noted in Vidya Drolia (supra), if this duty within the limited compass is not exercised, and the Court becomes too reluctant to intervene, it may undermine the effectiveness of both, arbitration and the Court. Therefore, this Court or a High Court, as the case may be, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Act, is not expected to act mechanically merely to deliver a purported dispute raised by an applicant at the doors of the chosen arbitrator, as explained in DLF Home Developers Limited v. Rajapura Homes Pvt. Ltd."
CS (Comm) 1616/23 Tecknodome India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cyder Electronic LLP Page no. 17 of 19
36. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. M/s Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd. [AIR 2021 Supreme court 2849], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as under:-
"34........It is only in the very limited category of cases, where there is not even a vestige of doubt that the claim is ex facie time-barred, or that the dispute is non-arbitrable, that the court may decline to make the reference. However, if there is even the slightest doubt, the rule is to refer the disputes to arbitration, otherwise it would encroach upon what is essentially a matter to be determined by the tribunal."
37. Although it is true that a reference under Section 8 cannot be a casual resort, at the same time, the Court cannot initiate a mini trial for the purposes of ascertaining validity of an arbitration agreement. The law leans towards upholding of the Arbitration Agreement and the superior Courts have very clearly ruled that "when in doubt, do refer".
38. The fact that it is the plaintiff's own document, the transmission whereof by e-mail dated 09.09.2020 nudges the Court's reasoning towards assuming the existence of the contract including on the principles of contra proferentum. Besides, the contention of learned counsel for the applicant/defendant that the parties proceeding to act upon the said agreement is also proved from the fact that they have been transacting the business as the Principal & Authorized Distributor.
39. The Court is, accordingly, prima facie of the opinion that there is a valid agreement and in terms of clause 16 of the said CS (Comm) 1616/23 Tecknodome India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cyder Electronic LLP Page no. 18 of 19 agreement, the parties needs to be referred to Arbitration. The application under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is, accordingly, disposed off as allowed.
40. Parties to take necessary steps accordingly for reference.
41. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
Announced today NIKHIL
signed by
NIKHIL
CHOPRA
i.e. on 30th Day of November, 2024 CHOPRA Date:
2024.11.30
in the open Court 15:59:56
+0530
(NIKHIL CHOPRA)
District Judge (Commercial Court-06)
Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi
30.11.2024
CS (Comm) 1616/23 Tecknodome India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cyder Electronic LLP Page no. 19 of 19