NATURAL REMEDIES PVT. LTD. Vs. ECGC LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Sec. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) seeking appointment of a sole Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the Shipment Insurance Policy dtd. 17/8/2017.

(2.) The petitioner-company which manufactures standardized herbal extracts, phyto-chemicals and herbal veterinary healthcare products availed an insurance policy from the respondent- Corporation, which is an undertaking of the Government of India, to cover the risk of shipment goods sought to be exported by the petitioner-company to M/s.Laboratories Biofort SARL, Morocco. The insurance policy bearing No.0090005470, dtd. 17/8/2017 was valid for the period 1/7/2017 to 30/6/2018. It is the contention of the petitioner-company that the export goods were shipped on 30/4/2018 under Invoice bearing No.9102000231 dtd. 31/3/2018 for USD 66,024.90/- on documents against acceptance which was payable within 120 days. The due date for payment was 28/8/2018. It is the contention of the petitioner-company that the importer claims to have made the payment, but not into the bank account of the petitioner, as authorized by the petitioner. In this regard, several communications are said to have been made between the parties. Nevertheless, since the petitioner-company suspected cyber crime, it lodged a police complaint with the Cyber Crime Police Station on 4/12/2018.

(3.) When the petitioner did not receive the payment, the petitioner lodged a claim with the respondent on the basis of the insurance policy dtd. 17/8/2017, on 7/1/2019. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent vide its letters dtd. 26/2/2019 and 24/7/2019. Thereafter, the petitioner-company caused a legal notice dtd. 24/8/2021 invoking Clause 33 of the insurance policy and nominated a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the lis in Bengaluru. The respondent gave a reply rejecting the proposal made by the petitioner while pointing out to Clauses 32 and 33 of the policy and contended that the parties had clearly agreed that the Courts in Mumbai will have exclusive jurisdiction regarding any dispute arising out of the policy. Clause 33 also provided that the venue of the arbitration shall be Mumbai.