Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Honasa Consumer Limited vs Rsmm General Trading Llc on 17 February, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar
Bench: Sanjay Kumar
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 73 OF 2024
HONASA CONSUMER LIMITED ..... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
RSMM GENERAL TRADING LLC ..... RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
The office report states that the respondent, RSMM General Trading LLC, has been served. It is also stated that the counsel appearing for the respondent before the High Court of Delhi was duly informed about the pendency of the present matter under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961. The respondent, RSMM General Trading LLC, is, therefore, set ex parte.
We have examined the facts stated in the present petition, which makes reference to the Authorized Distributor Agreement2 dated 30.07.2020 between the petitioner, Honasa Consumer Limited, and the respondent, RSMM General Trading LLC. The agreement has an arbitration clause in the form of Clause 24.5, which reads: -
“24.5 Dispute Resolution
(i) The Parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve any disputes, differences or claims arising of or in relation to this Agreement through mutual discussions. In case the dispute is not resolved within a period of 30 (thirty) days, it shall be settled through Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by arbitration.Deepak Guglani Date: 2025.02.21 18:34:16 IST Reason: 1
“1996 Act”, for short.
2“Agreement”, for short.
1
(ii) In the event of any question, dispute or difference arising under this Agreement or in connection therewith, the same shall be referred to the sole Arbitrator, to be appointed by the managing director of the Company. There will be no objection to any such appointment on the ground that the arbitrator has been appointed by the managing director of the Company to this Agreement. The award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on both the Parties of the Agreement. In the event of such an arbitrator to whom the matter is originally referred, being transferred or vacating his office or being unable to act for any reason whatsoever, the managing director of the Company shall appoint another person to act as an arbitrator in accordance with terms of the Agreement and the person so appointed shall be entitled to proceed from the stage at which it was left out by his predecessors.
(iii) The arbitration shall be subject to Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or amendments thereof. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in English. The venue of Arbitration shall be New Delhi, India.” In view of this clause and since the respondent, RSMM General Trading LLC, is a company incorporated in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE), this Court has jurisdiction to decide the present application for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 24.5 quoted above.
The petition also refers to a civil suit filed by the 2 respondent, RSMM General Trading LLC, before the Dubai Court in UAE, where the petitioner, Honasa Consumer Limited, raised objections, inter alia, relying upon the arbitration clause. Our attention is also drawn to the order dated 20.08.2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi in O.M.P.(I)(Comm.) No. 214/2014, which specifically refers to and deals with the judgment passed in Dubai. It is stated that the appeal against the judgment passed by the Dubai Courts of First Instance is pending. However, Section 8(3) of the 1996 Act states that notwithstanding an application made under Section 8(1) and the fact that the issue is pending before a judicial authority, arbitration may be commenced or continued, and an arbitral award can be made.
Therefore, we allow the present petition and appoint Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy, former Judge of this Court, to act as the sole Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator shall make a declaration/disclosure in terms of the provisions of the 1996 Act within 15 days from the date a copy of this order is received by him. The learned Arbitrator will be paid as per the Schedule fixed for international arbitrations by the Delhi International Arbitration Centre.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
................CJI.
(SANJIV KHANNA) ..................J. (SANJAY KUMAR) NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 17, 2025.
3
ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL-W
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 73 OF 2024 HONASA CONSUMER LIMITED ..... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS RSMM GENERAL TRADING LLC ..... RESPONDENT(S) (FOR ADMISSION) Date : 17-02-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR For Petitioner(s) :
Ms. Amita Gupta Katragadda, Adv. Ms. Nayani Aggarwal, Adv.
Mr. Karan Motiani, Adv.
M/s. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, AOR For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The present petition is allowed, in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(DEEPAK GUGLANI) (R.S. NARAYANAN) AR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(signed order is placed on the file) 4