MLR AUTO LIMITED Vs. INUDSIND BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an independent Sole Arbitrator having experience in accounts/finance in accordance with law relevant clauses of the memorandums of understanding dated 25.07.2016 and its subsequent renewals dated 25.07.2017 and 25.07.2018 entered into between the parties to adjudicate all the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent, after terminating the appointment of the sole arbitrator made by the respondent by its letter to the arbitrator dated 08.05.2019.

(2.) The petitioner entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the respondent dated 25.07.2016 (in short, 'MoU'?) for financing the vehicles, namely, autorickshaws manufactured by it. The said MoU was renewed on 25.07.2017 and subsequently on 25.07.2018. The petitioner entered into dealership agreements with various persons in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Orissa for selling their vehicles and the respondent extended finance facilities to the customers directly by entering into the agreements.

(3.) The MoU mandates the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as Replenishable Security Deposit (RSD), which was used by the respondent for buying back the vehicles, if there is any default by the customers. Though the petitioner kept replenishing the RSD initially without verifying the records, when it was demanded, during March 2019 some disputes arose with regard to the claim made by the respondent with respect to the buyback of the vehicles and hence, the petitioner sought certain details from the respondent. The respondent furnished a few of those particulars and asked the petitioner to approach the local branch of the respondent for the remaining details. In spite of repeated requests, the petitioner could not secure those details from the branch / local offices of the respondent and there is no co-operation from the subordinates of the respondent. There were exchange of emails between the parties regarding with respect to the claim and counter-claims. Later on, the petitioner was not provided with the particulars on the pretext that the matter is subjudice.