PURFORM LIMITED Vs. OK PLAY INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order, I propose to decide the abovementioned petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, called the ''Act '') filed by the petitioner.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner entered into an agreement dated 4th July, 2008 with respondent No.1 in Delhi whereby the petitioner granted to said respondent, inter -alia, (a) an exclusive license to use the petitioner 's intellectual property rights and know -how to manufacture and distribute the licensed products, such as, mannequins in India, and (b) a non -exclusive license to use the petitioner 's intellectual property rights and know -how to manufacture and supply the licensed products, such as, mannequins to the petitioner for supply by the petitioner outside India. In terms of Clause 4 of the agreement, the petitioner delivered to respondent No.1 aluminum moulds required by the said respondent to manufacture the licensed products, such as, the mannequins. As per Clause 4.3 of the agreement, the title to all the moulds was to remain with the petitioner and the risk in each mould was to be passed to respondent No.1 upon delivery to the said respondent and remain with respondent No.1 until the moulds are delivered back to the petitioner. The petitioner delivered to respondent No.1, 19 moulds pursuant to the agreement. Subsequently, the petitioner supplied and delivered 4 more moulds to respondent No.1 in February, 2012 pursuant to an agreement dated 7th February, 2012 to supply extra moulds between the petitioner and respondent No.1.

(3.) IT is the admitted position that in various e -mails exchanged between the parties after the termination of the agreement, the petitioner was requesting respondent No.1 to return the moulds. Since the respondent No.1 did not hand over the moulds to the petitioner, the petitioner thereafter filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Act.