PERFECT EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. PRESTIGE ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT. Counsel the respondent waives service. By consent, taken up for hearing and final disposal.

(2.) ON 20th May, 1995, an agreement was entered into between the parties by which the petitioner appointed the respondent as a sole selling agent for the sale of spare parts of textile machinery. Disputes arose between the parties and on 3rd April, 1998 the petitioner terminated the agreement. The agreement between the parties contained an arbitration clause in the following terms:

(3.) IN pursuance of the arbitral request, the Bombay Chamber of Commerce nominated Mr. Justice D. R. Dhanuka, a former Judge of this Court to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. Parties led evidence before the arbitrator. The Award of the sole arbitrator has been rendered on 16th May, 2002 by which the petitioner has been ordered and directed to pay an amount of Rs. 11,59,081. 16 to the respondent together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the reference. The Arbitral Award records that at the fourth arbitral meeting held on 4th April, 2000, the Arbitral Tribunal was specifically informed by and on behalf of the petitioner herein that in respect of the claim of the respondent of Rs. 14,83,963. 13 the petitioner conceded that the respondent was entitled to a credit of Rs. 11,78,894. 87. The arbitrator allowed the claim of the respondent to the extent of Rs. 11,59,081. 16. The arbitrator, however, rejected the contention of the respondent that it was entitled to commission even in respect of direct sales that were made by the petitioner during the term of the agreement. On the latter aspect, the arbitrator held that the respondent had not led evidence to prove that it was instrumental in causing orders to be placed for the purchase of the goods though these orders were directly received by the petitioner from customers. Consequently, the aforesaid claim could not be and was not allowed.