Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Uno Minda Limited vs Bohmer Technical Consulting Gmbh on 19 March, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar
Bench: Sanjay Kumar
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 31/2024
UNO MINDA LIMITED ..... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
BOHMER TECHNICAL CONSULTING GMBH & ..... RESPONDENT(S)
ANR.
O R D E R
This petition, under Sections 11(6) read with Section 11(12) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, 1 was filed by UNO Minda Limited, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator.
The arbitration agreement, that is, the consultancy agreement dated 16.01.2014 inter se the petitioner, Uno Minda Limited,2 and respondent No. 1, Bohmer Technical Consulting GmbH, is admitted.
The arbitration clause therein reads as under:
“ xxx xxx xxx This Agreement is governed by Indian law. The place of jurisdiction is Chennai, India. Any dispute, difference or claims arising under the Agreement shall be settled by arbitration of a sole arbitrator to be appointed mutually by both the parties. The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with amendments thereto. The venue of the arbitration shall be Chennai. For any interim relief, the courts at Chennai shall have exclusive jurisdiction.
xxx xxx xxx” Signature Not Verified 1 For short, the “1996 Act”.
Digitally signed by babita pandey Date: 2The consultancy agreement was executed between Harita Seating Systems Ltd. 2025.03.24 17:12:16 IST Reason:
and the respondent No. 1, Bohmer Technical Consulting GmbH. However, Harita Seating Systems Ltd. was subsequently amalgamated with the petitioner, Uno Minda Limited.
1 The petitioner, UNO Minda Limited, however, claims that respondent No. 2, Mr. Michael Bohmer, is also a party to the consultancy agreement dated 16.01.2014, which contains the arbitration clause. Respondent No.2, Mr. Michael Bohmer, would however contest this. We need not examine the said aspect, as the same is to be considered and decided by the Arbitrator.
Recording the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed. Mr. G. Umapathy, learned Senior Advocate of this Court, is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to go into the disputes inter se the parties. The learned Arbitrator shall file his declaration, in terms of Section 12 of the 1996 Act, within a period of fifteen days from the date a copy of this order is received by him. He shall be entitled to fees as prescribed by the Fourth Schedule to the 1996 Act, which will be shared by both parties, that is, the petitioner, UNO Minda Limited, and respondent No. 1, Bohmer Technical Consulting GmbH.
Learned counsel for the parties state that the venue of the arbitration will be in Delhi.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
................CJI.
(SANJIV KHANNA) ..................J. (SANJAY KUMAR) NEW DELHI;
MARCH 19, 2025.
2
ITEM NO.17 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
Petition for Arbitration No. 31/2024
UNO MINDA LIMITED Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
BOHMER TECHNICAL CONSULTING GMBH & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 19-03-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shailendera Kishore Singh, AOR Ms. Ananya Singhal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Aditya Verma, AOR Mr. Devyani Nath, Adv.
Mr. K Rigved Prasad, Adv.
Ms. Saumya Pandey, Adv.
Ms. Parkhi Rai, Adv.
Mr. Samar Singh, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following O R D E R The petition is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(BABITA PANDEY) (R.S. NARAYANAN)
AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file) 3