SIDDHARTHA SALES AGENCY Vs. SONY INDIA PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 37 (2) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Act") has been preferred against an order dated 4 th February 2009 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator.

(2.) THE learned Arbitrator was referred a dispute in respect of determination of distributorship agreement between the appellant and respondent. The total claim of appellant made before the Arbitrator is for an amount of Rs. 8,33,32,220/ -. During pendency of the claim, appellant made an application under Section 17 of the Act stating therein that the respondent had dumped stock worth rs. 62,12,940/- with the appellant and billed the same to appellant without the purchase orders and this stock was lying with the appellant and that the respondent should be directed to take back the stock so that the bank may be paid the outstanding amount. The other prayer made in the application was that a duly approved claim of Rs. 20,25,000/-, not paid by the respondent to the appellant be ordered to be paid to the appellant and the advertising material etc which cannot be used by appellant should be ordered to be taken back by respondent so that the expensive rental space was freed.

(3.) THE learned Arbitrator dismissed the application observing that prima facie the plea of dumping does not seem to be convincing and even if the plea of involunteer dumping was accepted, the same would be outside the purview of distributorship agreement and thus perhaps outside the purview of Arbitration. It was also observed that Section 17 envisages only an order directing a party to take interim measures of protection in respect to the subject matter of dispute, directing respondent to pay the amount as claimed by the appellant would in fact amount to passing of an interim award and would not be an order for interim measure of protection, more so when the respondent has denied its liability and has claimed that the amount already stood settled.