Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8.Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 01:20:58 pm ) Arb.O.P (Com.Div.) No.174 of 2025 this Court to the legal notice sent by the petitioner to the respondent dated 16.05.2017, pertaining to the subject claim regarding raw materials and would submit that despite the said notice, no reply was received from the respondent. He also drew the attention of this Court to the email sent by the respondent while making the part payment of Rs.20,24,12,191/- to the petitioner and even in the said email, they have not disputed the non- arbitrability of the raw materials claim made by the petitioner under the Insurance Policy. He would submit that only for the first time through the reply, sent by the respondent to the arbitration invocation notice issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the respondent had disputed the liability with regard to the raw materials claim made under the Insurance Policy dated 30.09.2015 on the ground that it is not an arbitrable dispute. He would submit that once there exists an arbitration clause in the contract, which is the subject matter of the dispute, which has also not been disputed by the respondent, this Court, while deciding a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has to necessarily appoint an Arbitrator as this Court, which is having a limited scrutiny, cannot make a roving enquiry with regard to the merits of the learned counsel for the respondent's contention, which have been reiterated in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 01:20:58 pm ) Arb.O.P (Com.Div.) No.174 of 2025 counter filed before this Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 01:20:58 pm ) Arb.O.P (Com.Div.) No.174 of 2025

12.It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner did not issue discharge voucher to the respondent on receipt of the sum of Rs.20,24,12,191/- even though a request was made by the respondent to the petitioner for the same. Even without a discharge voucher, the respondent has paid a sum of Rs.20,24,12,191/- to the petitioner, which according to the petitioner is not towards full and final settlement. Only for the first time through their reply sent to the arbitration invocation notice dated 20.08.2024, the respondent has taken a plea that they are not liable to pay the raw materials claim made by the petitioner. In all the previous communications prior to the aforesaid reply, the respondent has not disputed that the Insurance Policy does not give coverage for raw materials claim. Even to the legal notice dated 16.05.2017 sent by the lawyers of the petitioner, reiterating the petitioner's claim towards loss of raw materials, the respondent did not send any reply.

17.Insofar as the limitation issue raised by the respondent is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the arbitration invocation notice was sent by the petitioner on 22.07.2024. It is also an admitted fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had extended the period of limitation for the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 on account of Covid-19. The said period has been excluded for the purpose of saving limitation and the same was also not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent during the course of his submissions.

20.Since the respondent has questioned the arbitrability of the dispute and since in the reply sent to the arbitration invocation notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and since the respondent has refused to accept the name of the Arbitrator, suggested by the petitioner, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 01:20:58 pm ) Arb.O.P (Com.Div.) No.174 of 2025 this Court has to appoint a Sole Arbitrator despite the fact that the arbitration clause in the Insurance Policy, which is the subject matter of the dispute between the parties, provides for a three member Arbitral Tribunal on the failure of any of the parties to accept for arbitration through a Sole Arbitrator for the following reasons: