T. RAJAN Vs. KAIL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision application has been filed by the petitioner, challenging order of Sole Arbitrator, rejecting application of the petitioner, objecting to the maintainability of the Arbitration proceedings.

(2.) IN brief, the matter brought by the petitioner is that, the petitioner is proprietor of Firm M/s Rajan and Company, operating at Nagercoil, District Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu. It deals in Electronics goods. Respondent is Public Limited Company and deals in selling of multi -brand electronics goods. Officials of the respondent at Madurai Branch approached the firm of petitioner and petitioner had placed purchase orders with the said officials at Madurai Branch on credit. There was no agreement entered into between the petitioner and respondent. Later on, respondent claimed inflated amount of Rs.20,13,213/ - from petitioner although only Rs.10,79,354/ - was due. Respondent sent notice on the basis of forged documents and referred the matter to the Sole Arbitrator Shri Girish V. Wani. The appointment was unilateral and without consent of petitioner and in absence of any valid agreement. Respondent is trying to project an alleged document namely "Customer Master Attribute" (CMA for short). The petitioner denied that any such agreement was entered into or that such CMA could be termed as agreement. Respondent filed claim petition before the Sole Arbitrator on 21.3.2012. Case is that respondent had sent notice dated 3.11.2011, demanding Rs.20,13,213/ - and petitioner sent reply dated 12.12.2011, claiming that only Rs.10,79,354/ - was due. Respondent sent rejoinder dated 3.1.2012 and petitioner sent further reply dated 19.1.2012. The petitioner initially filed petition under Section 7, 9(ii)(d) and (e) and 13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act for short) before the District Judge, Nagercoil and the same was rejected on 19.3.2012. Order of the District Court was challenged before the Madurai Bench of the High Court of Madras in C.R.P. (P.D.) (M.D.) No.1250/2012 and M.P. (M.D.) No.1/2012 and even that petition was disposed of on 7.12.2012, holding that it was open to the petitioner to raise the plea before the Arbitrator. Petitioner appeared before the Sole Arbitrator and filed application dated 4.5.2013 raising objection at preliminary stage to the jurisdiction and maintainability of the arbitration proceedings as per Section 16 of the Arbitration Act. The respondent opposed the application and the application was rejected on 21.8.2013 and hence, the present revision application.

(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel for respondent raised objection that the present revision itself is not maintainable as the Arbitrator is not "Court" as contemplated under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Civil Procedure Code for short). According to the learned counsel, present matter does not arise from any judgment or order of "Court" as defined under Section 2(e) of the Arbitration Act. It has been submitted that, under Section 19, the Arbitral Tribunal is not even bound by the CPC or the Indian Evidence Act and thus, according to him, the present revision is not maintainable.