PRIMUS CHEMICALS LTD Vs. PROCESS UNITS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Arbitration Case u/S.11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has been filed for appointment of the independent arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the parties.

(2.) The case of the applicant is that an agreement was entered into by the applicant with the respondent for purchase of Agitated Filter Nutsche for a sum of Rs.77,00,000/- and the purchase order dated 5/2/1996 was sent by the applicant and in pursuance to the purchase order, the applicant had paid on 5/2/1996 Rs.7,70,000/-, on 9/4/1996 Rs.3,85,000/- and on 14/7/1997 Rs.10,00,000/- vide demand draft including commission. Hence, a total sum of Rs.21,55,000/- was paid. The purchase order was later modified and as per the modified purchase order dated 16/1/1999 Six Agitated Filter Nutsche pricing Rs.37,00,000/- were agreed to be purchased and after adjusting advance of Rs.21,55,000/- the balance amount of Rs.15,45,000/- was payable by the applicant. The original as well as the modified purchase order contained the arbitration clause, but the respondent had prepared only two Agitated Filter Nutsche. They were also incomplete and not fit for delivery and had not deliberately prepared other four Filter inspite of receiving 60% of the price in advance. Hence, in terms of the arbitration clause the applicant had given the legal notice dated 4/3/2005 and 12/5/2005 for appointing the Arbitrator, but the respondent vide reply dated 18/3/2005 and 12/5/2005 had refused to appoint the Arbitrator. The arbitration case was originally filed before the District Judge, Ujjain on 7/7/2005, but after the judgment of the supreme court in the matter of S.B.P. & Co. Vs. M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd and another, 2006 AIR(SC) 450 it has been transferred to this Court and registered accordingly.

(3.) The respondent has filed reply opposing the arbitration case and taking the plea that no arbitration agreement was entered into with the applicant and the purchase order dated 5/2/1996 was placed by one Standard Engineers and not by the present applicant. The claim was also disputed on merit and territorial jurisdiction of this court has been questioned.