Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

no.1 (being contract Nos.10377, 10413 and 10428) and one Agreement OMP (EFA.) (Comm.) No.1/2017 Page 1 with the respondent no.2 (being contract no.10529) for the sale of Non- Pareil In-shell Almonds(NPIS).

3. One of the conditions of the contract was that the parties agree to abide by the Uniform Almond Export Contract (UAEC 2007) terms and conditions.

4. UAEC 2007 in Clause 42 thereof provides for arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of CENTA. Clause 41 further provides for the contract to be governed by the English Law.

6. As far as the contract between the petitioner and respondent no.2 is concerned, there were supposed to be two shipments, out of which one was made, however, respondent no.2 refused to accept the same on account of fall in prices, while for the second one, the shipment was not made by the petitioner at the request of respondent no.2.

7. As the respondents did not pay the price for the quantity shipped and accepted by them and the petitioner claimed losses for the shipments OMP (EFA.) (Comm.) No.1/2017 Page 2 that were made but not accepted by the respondents and for the shipment that was cancelled, disputes arose between the parties.

OMP (EFA.) (Comm.) No.1/2017 Page 3

11. Respondent nos.1 and 2, by their common reply dated 11.03.2016 refuted the claim of the petitioner for damages, while reiterating their liability to pay USD 494,676 for the shipments duly made and accepted by the respondents.

12. The petitioner vide two separate notices dated 23.03.2016, one in relation to the three contracts with respondent no. 1 and the other with respect to the one Contract with respondent no. 2, invoked arbitration in the respective contracts with respondent nos.1 and 2 making reference to the CENTA Rules and nominating its Arbitrator.

15. The respondent nos.1 and 2 vide their e-mail dated 08.04.2016 jointly refuted the existence of the Arbitration Agreement reiterating that the terms of the Purchase Order would prevail over the contracts.

16. The petitioner, again vide its e-mail dated 19.04.2016 advised the respondents that as they did not appoint their Arbitrator, Ms.Sheryl Wheeler who had been nominated by the petitioner, shall be appointed as a Sole Arbitrator and they would be informing TNA accordingly.

OMP (EFA.) (Comm.) No.1/2017 Page 4