Facts
The petitioner partnership firm entered into a Distribution Agreement dated 14 April 2021 with respondent No. 1, a proprietorship firm, for distribution of its products.
Source reference: no citationAlleging that some products supplied were defective, the petitioners sought their return and a refund by legal notice dated 28 June 2024.
Source reference: p. 3After disputes arose, the petitioners invoked the agreement’s arbitration clause by notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, dated 18 December 2024.
Source reference: p. 4–5The respondents did not respond to that notice.
Source reference: p. 4–5The petitioners then filed this petition under Section 11(6) seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator; the respondents stated that they had no objection to the appointment.
Source reference: p. 4–5Issues
1. Whether a sole arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to adjudicate the disputes arising from the Distribution Agreement.
Source reference: p. 5–6Law Applied
Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, provides for court intervention in the appointment of an arbitrator in the circumstances specified by that provision.
Source reference: p. 4–5Section 21 addresses commencement of arbitral proceedings upon receipt of a request to refer the dispute to arbitration.
Source reference: p. 4–5Clause 14 of the Distribution Agreement required unresolved disputes to be referred to arbitration and specified Bengaluru as the place of arbitration.
Source reference: p. 4–5Reasoning
The Court found that the Distribution Agreement contained an arbitration clause covering disputes between the parties and that the petitioners had invoked it by issuing a Section 21 notice.
Source reference: p. 4–6The respondents’ failure to respond, together with their counsel’s stated lack of objection to appointment, supported the need to appoint an arbitrator to resolve the disputes.
Source reference: p. 4–6The Court therefore allowed the Section 11(6) petition without deciding the parties’ underlying claims or contentions.
Source reference: p. 6Holding
The Court allowed the petition and appointed Mr. D. Nagaraj, Advocate, as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Bengaluru, under that Centre’s rules.
All claims and contentions were left open.
Source reference: p. 6–7The parties were directed to appear before the Centre’s Director on 27 October 2026 at 11:30 a.m.; the Registry was also directed to communicate the order and return original documents after retaining photocopies.
Source reference: p. 6–7Acts & Sections Cited
2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19962
Original Court PDF
M/S. URBAN MOTOvsHEXA-GT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
