caselaws
Supreme Court of India
M/S Suprema Inc vs 4G Indentity Solutions Pvt Ltd on 13 May, 2015Bench: Ranjan Gogoi
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION CASE (CIVIL) NO.8 OF 2015
M/S SUPREMA INC …PETITIONER
VERSUS
4G IDENTITY SOLUTIONS
PVT. LTD. …RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
1. The petitioner Company which is incorporated under the laws of the
Republic of Korea carries on the business of biometrics research,
development and manufacturing. It has invoked the jurisdiction of this
Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for appointment of an arbitrator to
go into the disputes and differences that have arisen with the respondent
Company which is a private limited company incorporated in India under the
Companies Act, 1956.
2. The averments made in the present application would go to show that
pursuant to the contract awarded by Electronics Corporation of India
Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the ECIL”) to the respondent Company
for supply of Real Scanner G 10 fingerprint scanner (hereinafter referred
to as “the product”) the respondent Company in turn entered into an
agreement with the petitioner Company for supply of 10,500 units of the
product in question.
3. According to the petitioner Company, the aforesaid 10,500 units of
the product was duly supplied and delivered to the respondent Company and
bills totalling a sum of USD 3,212,000 were raised on the respondent for
payment.
4. The efforts of the petitioner to receive payment of its Bills for
supply of the product did not succeed. Consequently, the petitioner issued
notice of arbitration dated 20th June, 2013 to the respondent in terms of
the Master Agreement dated 15th July, 2011 entered into by and between the
parties. The said reference to the Arbitration was in terms of Article 16
of the aforesaid Master Agreement.
5. Pursuant thereto, arbitration commenced under the Singapore
International Arbitration Act. The proceedings in Arbitration were
objected to by the respondent on the ground that the Singapore Arbitral
Tribunal had no jurisdiction as the purchase orders in question had no
connection with the Master Agreement. In the objections raised by the
respondent it was, however, stated that the purchase orders though not
relatable to the Master Agreement were governed by the Supply Agreement.
The Supply Agreement contained a specific dispute resolution clause i.e.
D12 which is to the following effect:
“All disputes and differences arising in connection with this contract
shall be referred to ‘the arbitration authority under provisions of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996’”
6. Accordingly, the Singapore Arbitral Tribunal by an award dated 8th
April, 2014 held that it had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute. In the
aforesaid circumstances, the present petition has been filed seeking
appointment of an Arbitrator.
7. We have heard Shri Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioner. In spite of due service of notice, the respondent is not
represented. Though the petition could have been heard ex parte on the
date fixed i.e. 27th April, 2015, a further opportunity was granted to the
respondent and the case was adjourned to 11th May, 2015. Even on 11th May,
2015 there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. In the above
circumstances, there is no option but to proceed ex parte against the
respondent in the matter.
8. On a consideration of the averments made in the present arbitration
petition and the oral submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, it is clear that disputes and differences have arisen between
the parties with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner to receive the
amount of bills raised by it i.e. USD 3,212,000. Clause D12 of the Supply
Agreement, which according to the respondent, governs the matter
specifically provides for reference of all disputes and differences to “the
arbitration authority under provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996”.
9. In the above view of the matter, there can be no manner of doubt that
the petitioner is entitled to have its claim to receive the aforesaid
amount of the bills adjudicated by an Arbitrator appointed by the Court
under Section 11(6) of the Act. Consequently, we allow the present
petition and appoint Shri Justice B. Sudershan Reddy, a former judge of
this Court as the Arbitrator and request him to resolve the dispute between
the parties at an early date. The terms of appointment of Shri Justice B.
Sudershan Reddy as the Arbitrator will be settled in consultation with the
parties.
10. Let this order be communicated to the learned Arbitrator so that the
arbitration proceedings can commence and conclude as expeditiously as
possible.
11. The arbitration petition is disposed of in the above terms.
…………………………..J.
(RANJAN GOGOI)
NEW DELHI
MAY 13, 2015
Comments