Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Bausch & Lomb Eyecare(I) P.Ltd. vs Osa Vendita P.Ltd. on 15 January, 2016
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Abhay Manohar Sapre
1
ITEM NO.41 COURT NO.12 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 14869/2010
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated
03/02/2010 in AP No. 346/2008 passed by the High Court Of
Calcutta)
BAUSCH & LOMB EYECARE(I) P.LTD. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
OSA VENDITA P.LTD. Respondent(s)
(With interim relief and office report)
Date :15/01/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Mukti Chaudhry,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Nandini Sen, Adv.
Mr. Deba Prasad Mukherjee,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
It is not in dispute that there was a distribution agreement between the petitioner and Signature Not Verified M/s. Om Sai Agencies and it contained the Digitally signed by Arbitration clause. Because of certain disputes Ramana Venkata Ganti Date: 2016.01.20 16:42:13 IST Reason:
between the parties, the respondent filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation 2 Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act”) for appointment of an Arbitrator. The plea taken by the petitioner in opposition to the said petition was that the said agreement could not be assigned by M/s. Om Sai Agencies to the respondent.
We find that the answer to this argument could be provided only after the proper evidence is led by the parties inasmuch the respondent is successor-in-interest and after the said assignment there has been some dealings between the petitioner and the respondent-company. Whether these dealings were pursuant to the aforesaid distribution agreement or de hors that agreement is a question of fact to be decided.
In these circumstances, the order of the High Court allowing the petition under Section 11 of the Act and appointing the Arbitrator with the observation that the aforesaid issue has to be decided by the Arbitrator, cannot be faulted with. We do not find any error in the impugned order. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed.3
It is needless to mention that the petitioner shall have right to raise all defences that are available to it which would be gone into by the Arbitrator.
[ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Tapan Kr. Chakraborty ]
A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master