Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. On 17.09.2011, the petitioners filed an application under Section 12, 14 and Section 16 of the Act. The petitioners not only challenged the independence and partiality of the Arbitral Tribunal but also disputed the existence of an arbitration agreement.

8. The petitioners, thereafter, filed a petition under Section 14(2) of the Act before this Court being OMP 474/2012 captioned "Priknit Retails Ltd. v. Aneja Agencies", which was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 08.02.2013.

15. Fourth, he submitted that the parties had settled their disputes by entering into a MOU, which did not contain an arbitration agreement. Thus, the earlier agreements stood novated and the arbitration agreement, if any, did not survive.

16. Lastly, he submitted that the Arbitral Tribunal had also erred on merits by accepting the claim of the respondent firm without an affidavit as required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872.

17. Mr R.G. Srivastava, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent countered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. He submitted that the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners had been rejected by this Court in its decision Priknit Retails Ltd. v. Aneja Agencies: OMP 474/2012, decided on 08.02.2013. He submitted that an arbitration clause contained in an invoice was binding on the parties. He relied on the decision of this Court in M/s Luda Ram Ved Parkash v. M/s Maharani of India and Anr.: AIR 1989 Delhi 169 in support of his contention. He also stated that this Court had referred to various decisions in the order dated 08.02.2013 passed in OMP 474/2012: J.N. Textiles v. Bon Chance & Anr.: 2000 IV AD (Delhi) 860, Tikkan Lal Sewa Ram v. Seth Jiwan Dass Des Raj: 18 (1980) DLT 248 and P.C. Aggarwal v. K.N. Khosla, AIR 1975 Del 54.

20. The first and foremost question to be addressed is whether any arbitration agreement exists between petitioner no.1 and the respondent firm. The contention that the said issue is covered by the decision of this Court in Priknit Retails Ltd. v. Aneja Agencies (supra) is erroneous. The said decision was rendered in the context of the application submitted under Section 14(2) of the Act, which was rejected. This Court in that case had held that the challenge laid by the petitioner was premature, and the issues relating to the arbitrary appointment of arbitrators would be open to challenge under Section 34 as well as Section 37 of the Act. The Court was also of the view that the termination of the mandate of an arbitrator would entail reappointment of an arbitrator under Section 15 of the Act, and the process of termination of the mandate of an arbitrator could not be used to terminate the arbitration proceedings. It is clear from the above that none of the challenges made by the petitioner to the Arbitration proceedings were finally considered by this Court in that matter, as the Court was of the view that none of the prayers fell within the scope of Section 14 of the Act. The Court had also expressly observed that the petitioners' remedy would be by filing objections under Section 34 of the Act at an appropriate stage. In this view, the contention, that the petitioners are precluded from urging their challenge to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal by virtue of the decision of this Court in Priknit Retails Ltd. (supra), is unmerited.

and the amount paid. The third section, which is at the bottom of the invoice, contains the arbitration clause and is reproduced below:-

"M/s .................. Pcs............ Received the above goods from ANEJA AGENCIES, Katra Neel, Chandni Chowk, Delhi as per Bill. Dated................. in good order and condition, according to the rules & regulation of the Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association Delhi. In case of any dispute between you and us regarding payment etc. or any other business matter we both shall approach the Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association or the Arbitrator or tribunal appointed by them for settlement by arbitration according to their rules & the decision given by them shall be binding on both of us & we shall have no objection to it.