VODAFONE ESSAR SPACETEL LIMITED Vs. ABHIYAAN LOGISTICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As both these applications are filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and as the arbitration agreements in both cases are common, both these applications are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, documents and pleadings in Arbitration Case No.54/2011 are being referred to in this order.

(2.) M/S Vodafone Essar Spacetel Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, and having its registered office in New Delhi and a circle office in Bhopal entered into two agreements with the respondent company. The agreements in question were executed at Bhopal on 15.4.2008 and 19.5.2008, Annexures A/2 and A/3 respectively. Both the agreements pertain to granting contract to M/s Abhiyaan Logistics for establishment of a warehouse facility for M/s Vodafone Essar Spacetel Limited. In execution of the agreements, it is said that proper payments was not made to the company i.e... M/s Abhiyaan Logistics and, therefore, they raised various claims. However, it was the case of M/s Vodafone Essar Spacetel Limited that the services rendered by the company i.e... M/s Abhiyaan Logistics, was not proper and certain disputes in this regard were initiated in the Civil Court having jurisdiction at Bhopal under section 9. Thereafter, the warehouse company namely - M/s Abhiyaan Logistics, sought for appointment of an arbitrator for resolution of the dispute in view of the arbitration agreement contained in the agreement dated 15.4.2008, entered into between the parties for establishment of warehouse facility at Bhopal. In the application submitted M/s Abhiyaan Logistics requested for appointment of a particular person as an arbitrator. M/s Vodafone Essar Spacetel Limited even though agreed for appointment of an arbitrator, indicated that they would like the arbitration to be undertaken by another person. As there was difference of opinion between the parties with regard to the arbitrator, both these applications have been filed under section 11(6) of the Act.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the records, it is clear that there are two agreements. The first agreement is dated 15.4.2008 and is known as the 'Bhopal Agreement' for the purpose of establishment of warehouse facility at Bhopal. The second agreement is dated 19.5.2008 known as the 'Raipur Agreement' for the establishment of warehouse facility a Raipur. Both the agreements are executed at Bhopal on 15.4.2008 and 19.5.2008, and the work was to be done at Bhopal and Raipur respectively. As far as the Bhopal Agreement is concerned, there is no difficulty with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The only dispute is as to who should be the arbitrator. Parties agree that the dispute has to be resolved by arbitration and, therefore, this Court is only required to constitute an arbitral Tribunal for resolution of this dispute arising out of the Bhopal Agreement.