Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

R.BANUMATHI,J Challenge in this appeal is the order dated 12.04.2006 in O.P.No.197 of 2001 dismissing the Petition filed under Sec.34 of Arbitration Act, 1996 and declining to interfere with the Award passed by the Arbitrator.

2. First Respondent-Balmer Lawrie and Company Limited is a Government of India Enterprise having interalia Leather Chemicals Division situate at Manali, Chennai producing Leather Chemicals required by the Tanneries. For selling those products, 1st Respondent appoints stockists and consignment stock Agents throughout India. In order to market the products in Northern India, 1st Respondent entered into three Agreements with the Appellant - (i) Stockist Agreement dated 01.8.1995 effective from 01.4.1995; (ii) Consignment Stockist Agreement dated 20.03.1996; and (iii) Consignment Stockist Agreement dated 12.07.1997 effective from 01.04.1997 for a period of five years. Under the Consignment Stockist Agreement, Appellant had been appointed as Consignment Stock Agent in Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Union Territory of Delhi and Jammu and Kashmir to sell directly or indirectly to persons or firms located in those Territories. Consignment Stock Agent was required to send the account sale accompanied by Demand Draft for the sale amount after deducting 20% commission and admissible expenses. If it fails to remit the amount, it has to pay interest at 20% per annum. Consignment Stockist Agreement dated 12.07.1997 contains Arbitration clause that is if any dispute arises between the parties, by the Managing Director of the 1st Respondent's Company or his nominee. 1st Respondent has been consigning its Leather Chemicals to the Appellant for sale as per the agreement. Inspite of supply of goods to the Appellant which in turn has been sold by the Appellant, the amounts due and payable to the 1st Respondent has not been paid. There were also certain unsold stocks at Delhi and Kanpur which have not been returned to the 1st Respondent nor their value remitted. The said default committed by the Appellant gave rise . dispute between the parties. Dispute having thus arisen, the 1st Respondent invoked clause 22 of the agreement providing for Arbitration by the Managing Director or his nominee. The Managing Director had nominated Justice G.Ramanujam,J (retired) as an Arbitrator to decide the said dispute by letter dated 09.12.1999. 2nd Respondent-Arbitrator entered on the reference on 11.12.1999 and held the first sitting on 22.12.1999 after notice to the parties. 2nd Respondent-Arbitrator held the sittings on 22.12.1999, 01.02.2000, 03.03.2000, 29.04.2000, 20.05.2000, 03.06.2000, 24.06.2000. On 29.04.2000, Appellant and his counsel were not present and hence, Appellant was set exparte and matter was adjourned to 20.05.2000. On 20.05.2000, Appellant gave letter dated 19.05.2000 stating that he would negotiate for settlement; but Appellant did not attend the hearing on 20.05.2000 and the matter was adjourned to 03.06.2000. In the hearing on 03.06.2000, 1st Respondent took time for adducing evidence and 2nd Respondent-Arbitrator adjourned the hearing to 24.06.2000. On 24.06.2000 evidence of 1st Respondent was recorded and documents were marked. After reserving the matter, 2nd Respondent-Arbitrator passed the Award on 24.07.2000.

23. Contention regarding excess of jurisdiction [S.34(2)(a)(iv) of Arbitration Act] - Appellant entered into three agreements with the 1st Respondent on 01.08.1995  viz., Stockist Agreement [Ex.C1] to be commenced with effect from 1st April, 1995 and on 20.03.1996 [Ex.C2]-Consignment Stockist Agreement for a period of three years and yet another Agreement viz., Consignment Stockist Agreement dated 12.07.1997 [Ex.C3] with effect from 1st April, 1997 for a period of five years. As regards, Agreement No.1 [Ex.C1], admittedly, there was no clause for Arbitration. So far as, Agreement Nos.2 and 3 [Exs.C2 and C3] are concerned, Arbitration clauses have been incorporated. The said Arbitration clause in clause-22 of the third agreement [Ex.C3] was invoked and the Arbitrator has been appointed on emergence of disputes in between the parties.

"1. The claim and counter claim, if any, including stock dispute of both the parties and reconciliation thereof, for authentication.
2. The mode of settlement of claim of one party by the other party and prescribe maximum time frame by which settlement of claim should be completed.
3. You may please indicate your fee with structure for the arbitration to enable us forward our share of 50% fee after deduction of applicable taxes."

The Arbitrator entered appearance on reference on 11.12.1999.

26. The contention of Appellant is that 2nd Respondent-Arbitrator was appointed to arbitrate in the matter of various disputes arisen pertaining to Consignment Stockist Agreement dated 12.07.1997 and hence, the 2nd Respondent-Arbitrator could adjudicate only the disputes arising in respect of the said agreement dated 12.07.1997 whereas, the 2nd Respondent-Arbitrator had dealt with the dispute not contemplated or not falling within the terms of submission to the Arbitration. It was further contended that the claim of Rs.18,70,701.01 was in respect of the Consignment Stockist Agreement dated 01.08.1995 which does not contain Arbitration clause and while so, 2nd Respondent-Arbitrator went beyond the scope of reference to Arbitration. It was further submitted that the claim which was referred to the 2nd Respondent-Arbitrator is only in respect of the Consignment Stockist Agreement dated 12.07.1997 and the claim arising out of the Stockist Agreement dated 01.08.1995 cannot be in connection with or arising out of the Consignment Stockist Agreement dated 12.07.1997 as the agreements dated 01.08.1995 and 12.07.1997 wholly operated on different field. In other words, the contention of the Appellant is that the Agreement dated 01.08.1995 is a Stockist Agreement and the other agreement dated 12.07.1997 is a Consignment Stock Agency Agreement, the finding of the learned single Judge is erroneous.

34. Applying the ratio of Olympus case, we find that the learned single Judge has rightly held that the scope of Arbitrator appointed under the third agreement dated 12.07.1997 [Ex.C3] is also covering the disputes in the earlier two agreements dated 01.08.1995 and 20.03.1996 [Exs.C1 and C2] entered into between the parties as they are interconnected and arising out of the transactions mentioned in the third agreement dated 12.07.1997 [Ex.C3].

35. As pointed out earlier, the dispute as to the sale of stocks is said to be connected with the Consignment Stockist Agreement dated 12.07.1997. The Arbitration Clause contained in the Consignment Stockist Agreement dated 12.07.1997 is comprehensive for the Arbitrator to resolve the connected dispute and the learned single Judge rightly held that the Award cannot be assailed on the ground of "want of sufficient opportunities" and "lack of /excess of jurisdiction. We do not find any infirmity warranting interference with the order of learned single Judge and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.