Executed customer terms and acted-upon invoices establish an arbitration agreement covering payment disputes.

The Applicant supplied products to the Respondent under business transactions commencing in 2016.

It relied on a KYC Form and Sales Terms and Conditions executed on 6 July 2016, and on invoices containing arbitration clauses.

The Applicant alleged that substantial invoice dues remained unpaid, that a cheque for ₹4,05,68,061 issued towards those dues was dishonoured, and that the Respondent later made a part payment of ₹10,00,000.

After the Applicant invoked arbitration in June 2026, the Respondent neither agreed to the proposed appointment nor responded.

It also filed no reply in the Section 11 application.

The Applicant sought appointment of an arbitrator.

1. Whether the documents and conduct relied upon by the Applicant sufficiently established an arbitration agreement between the parties

2. Whether court intervention was justified to appoint an arbitrator after the Respondent did not concur in the proposed appointment, where the contractual clauses provided for appointment by the Applicant

The Court considered the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in particular Section 11, under which the Court intervened to constitute the arbitral tribunal, and Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1), concerning the arbitrator’s statutory disclosure.

It treated the existence of an arbitration agreement as a threshold requirement and assessed that question from the documents and the parties’ conduct.

The Court also stated that it could not simply give effect to a contractual appointment method if it was contrary to the Act or the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

No specific precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court found that the executed KYC Form and Sales Terms and Conditions, the arbitration clauses printed on the invoices, and the parties’ conduct together provided sufficient material to establish an arbitration agreement covering disputes arising from the transactions.

The dishonoured cheque and subsequent part payment supported the conclusion that the parties had acted on the underlying transactions, though the Court treated the amount payable as a matter for the tribunal rather than deciding the monetary claim itself.

The Respondent’s failure to reply was not treated as automatically proving the Applicant’s case; rather, the Court noted that the documents and conduct remained undisputed and that no contrary material had been produced.

As the Respondent did not concur in an appointment, the agreed procedure had not resulted in an appointment, and the Court considered intervention justified.

It appointed a sole arbitrator in accordance with law rather than simply enforcing the Applicant’s contractual power to appoint.

It appointed Mr. Tushad Kakalia as sole arbitrator, directed the Applicant to communicate the order and provide party particulars, and requested the arbitrator to issue the statutory disclosure.

The parties were directed to appear as notified and to bear the arbitrator’s fees and other arbitral costs equally in the first instance, subject to the tribunal’s final order or award on costs.

The merits were left open, and the application was disposed of.