P.R. CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. BUZZ LIVE FOODS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition is filed seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate all the disputes that have arose between the petitioner and the respondent in respect of the Memorandum of Agreement dated 04.04.2016.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as stockist by the respondent for its product named "Pelicana DDTM" for four locations, pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement dated 04.04.2016 (in short, "MOA"). The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- as Caution Deposit by way of NEFT. It was agreed by the respondent that they will appoint Sales Executives and Distributors for distribution and the petitioner can supply the product, on receipt of cash from the retailers /distributors, which condition was not complied with. The respondent, who was advertising the product earlier, stopped it later. Hence, there was no demand for the product leading to piling up of the stock in the petitioner's godown and thus, the petitioner incurred huge loss. When the said issue was discussed with the respondent, it was agreed upon that they will take back the unsold stock, after receiving formal request for cancellation of the MOA from the petitioner, with suitable compensation and will also repay the Caution Deposit.

(3.) Thus, the petitioner sent a letter dated 19.08.2016 to the respondent to cancel the MOA and to take back the stocks, besides paying compensation and reimbursing Caution Deposit. But he had received reply notice dated 11.09.2016 containing counter allegations and sought for an amicable settlement. Since there is no sign of development in the settlement talks, the petitioner, in terms of para No. 27 of the MOA, which provides for arbitration of all disputes, issued a statutory notice dated 17.10.2018 asking the respondent to suggest three names of the retired District Judges, amongst whom, the petitioner will nominate a sole arbitrator, which was followed by another similar notice on 23.11.2018. However, the notices were not served, as the respondent is able to avoid service. Thus, the petitioner is before this Court with this petition.