Facts
The petitioner, a footwear supplier, relied on a Supply Agreement dated 27 February 2019 with the respondent, which contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration in Bengaluru. The petitioner alleged that disputes arose over purchase orders, marketing support, debit notes and unpaid amounts, and claimed principal and statutory interest
Source reference: pp. 2–4, para. 2After the respondent did not respond to the petitioner’s Section 21 notice dated 1 April 2026, the petitioner filed this petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator. The respondent was served with notice of the petition but did not appear
Source reference: pp. 4–5, paras. 3–5Issues
Whether the parties’ Supply Agreement contained an arbitration clause covering their disputes
Source reference: pp. 4–5, paras. 3, 6Whether, following the petitioner’s invocation of the clause and the respondent’s failure to respond, a sole arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(5) of the Act
Source reference: pp. 2, 5–6, paras. 1, 3–6Law Applied
Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides the basis for seeking appointment of an arbitrator where the agreed appointment process is not completed.
Source reference: pp. 2, 5–6, paras. 1, 3–6Section 21 concerns commencement of arbitral proceedings upon receipt of a request to refer the dispute to arbitration. Under Clause 18 of the Supply Agreement, the parties were to attempt an amicable settlement and, if unsuccessful within 30 days, refer the dispute to an arbitrator mutually appointed by them; the arbitration was to be conducted in Bengaluru under the Act
Source reference: pp. 2, 4–5, paras. 1, 3Reasoning
The Court found that Clause 18 provided for arbitration of disputes connected with the Supply Agreement and that the petitioner had invoked the clause by serving a Section 21 notice.
Source reference: pp. 4–6, paras. 3–6The respondent neither responded to that notice nor appeared despite service in the petition. On those circumstances, the Court concluded that appointment of a sole arbitrator was required to adjudicate the parties’ disputes
Source reference: pp. 4–6, paras. 3–6Holding
The petition was allowed. The Court appointed retired District Judge Shri Ravindra M. Joshi as sole arbitrator, to conduct the arbitration at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Bengaluru, under that Centre’s rules.
The parties’ claims and contentions were left open, and the parties were directed to appear before the Centre’s Director on 30 October 2026 at 11:30 a.m.
Source reference: pp. 6–7, para. 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 AAKASH AND COvsFLIPKART INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
