ARBAP/2/2022 of M/S PATANJALI AYURVED LIMITED Vs M/S SATVA TRADE LINK on 23 December 2022

JUDGMENT:

No reply has been filed by the respondent. Accordingly, I proceed to dispose of this Arbitration Application.

2) The case of the applicant is that the applicant M/ s Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. entered into an agreement with the respondent, whereunder the respondent was appointed as applicant’s Super Distributor on the terms and conditions contained in the Agreement dated 01.03.2017.

3) This Agreement contains an Arbitration Clause, which reads as follows :

“ARBI TRATI ON

If any dispute arises between the parties at any time in connection with the validity, interpretation, implementation or alleged material breach of any provision of this agreement, the parties shall endeavour to settle such dispute amicable. any time in connection with the validity, interpretation, implementation or alleged material breach of any provision of this agreement, the parties shall endeavour to settle such dispute amicable.

In case of such failure the dispute shall be referred to a sole arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. referred to a sole arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The venue for the arbitration proceeding shall be Haridwar, Uttarakhand, and the language of arbitration shall be Hindi / English. shall be Haridwar, Uttarakhand, and the language of arbitration shall be Hindi / English.

That Acharya Balkrishna, Managing Director of PATANJALI shall be the sole Arbitrator and his decision shall be binding on both the parties. Director of PATANJALI shall be the sole Arbitrator and his decision shall be binding on both the parties.

The arbitrator(s) award shall be substantiated in writing. The court of arbitration shall also decide on the costs of the arbitration proceedings. substantiated in writing. The court of arbitration shall also decide on the costs of the arbitration proceedings.

The award passed by the Arbitrator(s) shall be final and binding on both the parties.” be final and binding on both the parties.”

4) The applicant submits that disputes arose between the parties, as there were outstanding dues of the applicant, which the respondent has not discharged. The applicant issued a notice dated 16.09.2021, demanding an amount of Rs.5,41,23,868/ -, followed by a notice invoking Arbitration on 10.10.2021. Despite the said notices neither the demand of the applicant was met, nor the parties agreed for appointment of a sole Arbitrator. Consequently, this Application has been preferred.

5) The submission of learned counsel for the respondent is that under the Arbitration Agreement, the parties, firstly, had to endeavour to settle the dispute amicably. Counsel submits that the applicant has not made any effort to settle the dispute amicably. It is also argued that the respondent was not served with the notice of invocation dated 10.10.2021. At the same time, there is no dispute raised with regard to the factum of the parties entering into the aforesaid Agreement, as also the fact that the said Agreement contains the aforesaid Arbitration Agreement.

6) Having considered the submission of learned counsels, I find no merit in the submission of counsel for the respondent.

Conclusion

7) The applicant, firstly, raised a demand on the respondent. The respondent did not come forward to resolve the disputes between the parties. Even after service of notice in the present Application in October 2022, as claimed by the respondent itself, no endeavour was made by the respondent to settle the disputes with the applicant. Therefore, in my view, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondent to claim that the applicant has not come forward to resolve the disputes amicably. I also do not find any merit in the submission that the notice invoking Arbitration Agreement dated 10.10.2021, was not served on the respondent. There is no reply filed by the respondent to this effect. In any event, the respondent has been served with the notice in this Application on 21.10.2022. The application itself contains the notice invoking Arbitration. In my view, this is sufficient notice to the respondent, invoking the Arbitration Agreement. Accordingly, this objection is also rejected. The Application is allowed.

8) Accordingly, I appoint Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog, Retd. Chief Justice, Bombay High Court (Mobile No. [REDACTED]), to act as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out of the aforesaid Agreement.

9) Arbitration Application stands disposed of, accordingly.

________________

VI PI N SANGHI , C.J.

Dt: 23[rd] DECEMBER, 2022 Negi