TECHNO AIRCON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Vs. AAB LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this civil miscellaneous petition under Sec. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short 'the Act') for the adjudication of the dispute, which has arisen in relation to the Purchase Order at Annexure -A dated 11.09.2008.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent assured timely payment for fabrication of the ducts which were to be made as per the specification given by the respondent. Believing the false assurances to be true, the petitioner agreed to do the work of fabrication for the respondent. The petitioner has duly complied with all its part of obligation legally and contractually and always delivered the goods as per the Purchase Order. The respondent has deliberately breached the agreed terms of the Purchase Order by not making payments to the petitioner. The respondent in its letter at Annexure -B dated 14.05.2010 has admitted its liability to make payments to the petitioner. Instead of making the payments as per the mutual agreed terms, the respondent sent a legal notice regarding the material reconciliation. It is further contended that the respondent filed an application for appointment of a sole arbitrator deliberately before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which does not have the jurisdiction. After appointment of the sole arbitrator by the Delhi High Court, the petitioner has raised preliminary objection before the arbitrator that the respondent has unlawfully and illegally invoked the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The matter is pending before the arbitrator for adjudication. The Purchase Order contains an arbitration clause for the adjudication of the dispute. Therefore, the petitioner issued notice at Annexure -C dated 23.6.2014 calling upon the respondent to concur with any one of the three arbitrators suggested by the petitioner. However, the respondent has not consented for appointment of a sole arbitrator. The respondent has not even sent any reply to the said notice.

(3.) The respondent has filed objections by contending that the dispute in relation to the Purchase Order has already been referred to the Arbitral Tribunal of Smt. Kanwal Inder Kaur by the Delhi High Court under Sec. 11 of the Act. The learned Arbitrator was appointed by mutual consent. The respondent has already filed statement of objections and counter claim before the arbitrator. Therefore, the petition is not maintainable.