REACH LOGISTICS (P) LIMITED Vs. BOSCH LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who has signed the 'Service Agreement' dtd. 1/11/2008 with the respondent which includes the agreement for resolution of the disputes by arbitration, has filed this petition for appointment of a sole arbitrator. The respondent does not deny the execution of the Service Agreement or the agreement for arbitration, but the respondent contends that the petitioner's claim would be time barred. The respondent's contention is based on the assertion that the Service Agreement is terminated on 29/10/2015; all the dues are paid to the petitioner on 3/8/2017; the petitioner has issued the first demand notice on 6/10/2017 and the present petition is filed after issuance of notice dtd. 20/1/2022.

(2.) While the learned counsel for the respondent relies upon these circumstances to contend that the petitioner's claim is time barred, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that indeed a demand notice was issued on 6/10/2017 raising the claim. The respondent has issued an interim reply on 19/10/2017 but has not issued any response thereafter. As such, the petitioner has issued another legal notice on 18/9/2020 within time and has commenced proceedings before this Court in CMP No.260/2020 for appointment of a sole arbitrator. The petitioner has withdrawn the said petition with liberty owing to an error in mentioning the details of the present Service Agreement in the said legal notice. The petitioner has once again issued notice dtd. 20/1/2022 for commencement of arbitral proceedings.

(3.) On careful consideration of the rival submissions, and the circumstances relied upon by the parties, this Court cannot opine, at this stage, that the petitioner's claim is time barred. Therefore, the petition must be allowed. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that any of the three retired District Judges nominated by the petitioner could be appointed as the sole arbitrator but with liberty to the respondent to raise all the contentions including the defense that the petitioner's claim is time barred.