Karnataka High Court
Mr. Gurinder P Singh Dhall vs Ahneuser Bush Inbev India Ltd on 16 September, 2022
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
CMP No. 686 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 686 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
MR. GURINDER P. SINGH DHALL
PROPRIETOR OF M/S DHALL ALCOBEV
REGISTERED PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM
M /F-90/32, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA
PHASE - 1, NEW DELHI - 110020
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR
MR. GURINDER P SINGH DHALL
AGE 71 YEARS
...PETITIONER
(BY KUM. MEENAKSHI.K.K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
AHNEUSER BUSH INBEV INDIA LTD
(FORMERLY SABMILLER INDIA LIMITED)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
6TH FLOOR, GREEN HEART BUILDING
MFAR MANYATA TECH PARK
PHASE - IV, NAGAVARA
Digitally signed by
POORNIMA BENGALURU - 560045
SHIVANNA ...RESPONDENT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) OF THE
KARNATAKA
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT
A SOLE ARBITRATOR AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND
REFER THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO ARBITRATION
CLAUSE AS MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPH NO.14.3 AND 14.4 UNDER
THE SERVICE PROVIDER AGREEMENT DATED 20.09.2017 AT
ANNEXURE-A.
THIS CMP, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CMP No. 686 of 2022
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
i. Appoint a sole Arbitrator as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and refer the disputes between the parties to arbitration clause as mentioned in paragraph No.14.3 and 14.4 under the Service Provider Agreement dated 20.09.2017 at Annexure-A. ii. Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The petitioner and the respondent had entered into a Service Provider Agreement dated 20.09.2017, which is governed by an arbitration clause in terms of Clause 14.2, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
14.2 In case of any dispute or difference between the Parties in connection with or arising out of this Agreement, the Party contending the existence of s dispute or difference shall deliver a written notice of such dispute or difference to the other Party pursuant to which the Parties shall endeavour to resolve such dispute or difference in an amicable manner through mutual consultations. Is no settlement can be reached through consultations between the Parties within 30 (thirty) days of one Party delivering a written notice of the dispute to the other Part, then such matter shall be finally settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the (Indian) Arbitration and -3- CMP No. 686 of 2022 Conciliation Act, 1996 or any modification or amendment thereto ("Arbitration Act").
3. The petitioner claims to have issued a notice invoking the arbitration on account of disputes, which have arisen and the respondent not having agreed for arbitration is before this Court seeking for appointment of an arbitrator.
4. A perusal of Clause 14.2 indicates that a party shall endeavor to resolve such disputes or differences in an amicable manner through mutual consultations and if no settlement is reached, then a written notice invoking the arbitration clause has to be issued and thereafter, it is the respondent who had the authority to appoint a sole arbitrator and only in the event of the respondent not appointing an arbitrator, each of the parties can appoint an arbitrator and those two arbitrators to appoint a Presiding Arbitrator.
5. Despite enquiry, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any document to establish any -4- CMP No. 686 of 2022 effort made for amicable resolution of the matter on mutual consultation nor any notice had been issued calling for the respondent to appoint an arbitrator. The petitioner has directly issued a notice appointing its own arbitrator without following the terms of the arbitration clause. In view thereof, I am of the considered opinion that the same is not a proper invocation of the arbitration clause.
6. Hence, reserving liberty to the petitioner to comply with the arbitration clause seeking for amicable resolution by mutual consultation and thereafter complying with the requirement of Clause 14.2 of the arbitration clause, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Prs* List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9