M/S Fresh N Honest Foods vs. M/S Arkavathi Feeds
Original PDF →Facts
M/s Fresh N Honest Foods (Petitioner) filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator. The dispute arose from a Feed Processing Agreement dated 08.06.2023 between the Petitioner and M/s Arkavathi Feeds (Respondent), a partnership firm represented by its partners. The agreement stipulated that the Respondent would process raw materials supplied by the Petitioner. A dispute emerged when the Respondent allegedly terminated the agreement via an email on 23.03.2024, without proper authorization, and subsequently confiscated the Petitioner's raw materials and goods valued at Rs. 10,00,000/- on 03.05.2024, citing an unpaid invoice. The Petitioner issued a legal notice, followed by an arbitration notice proposing arbitrator names. The Respondents disagreed with the proposed names, leading to the present petition.
Held
The Court held that the Petitioner had made out sufficient grounds to refer the dispute to an Arbitrator. The existence of an arbitration clause (Clause 16) in the Feed Processing Agreement dated 08.06.2023 was undisputed. The Court noted that a dispute had indeed arisen between the parties, necessitating resolution through arbitration as per the agreement. Furthermore, the Respondents explicitly stated they had no objection to the petition being allowed and to the appointment of the arbitrator proposed by the Petitioner. Therefore, the Court found that the conditions for appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, were met. The Court allowed the petition and nominated Hon’ble Justice Sri A.V.Chandrashekar, Former Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to an Arbitrator as per Clause 16 of the Feed Processing Agreement, in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? The Petitioner argued that a dispute had arisen between the parties, and Clause 16 of the Feed Processing Agreement clearly provided for dispute resolution through arbitration. The Petitioner had issued an arbitration notice proposing the name of Hon’ble Justice Sri A V Chandrashekar as the Arbitrator and therefore prayed for the petition to be allowed. The Respondents, through their counsel, stated that they had no objection to the petition being allowed and to the nomination of Hon’ble Justice Sri A V Chandrashekar, Former Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, as the sole Arbitrator.
Sections Cited
Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties in terms of clause 16 of the Feed processing Agreement dated 08.06.2023 produced vide Document No. 2
Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition, are as follows : The respondent is a partnership concern, represented by its partners, Mr.Ramanjinappa and his wife Smt.Narasamma. The respondent represented to the petitioner that they have the necessary expertise, infrastructure and facilities for providing requisite services, more particularly, storage, preservation, handling, processing and value added services. The petitioner, was in need of the same, agreed to avail the said facilities by providing raw materials, feed supplements, and NC: 2025:KHC:15017 packaging materials for processing the goods. A Feed Processing Agreement dated 8.6.2023, came to be executed for accomplishing the aforesaid proposal and acceptance of the terms indicated therein. 2. 1. As per the Processing Agreement dated 8.6.2023, the petitioner Concern had to supply raw materials, for processing, at the Processing Centre belonged to the respondents. The respondents were required to hold the raw materials of the petitioner in trust and to process the same in terms of the Processing Agreement dated 8.6.2023, and to handover the same in finished form. On completion of processing the raw materials furnished by the petitioner, the respondents were required to submit the invoice/s with the petitioner Concern. The undisputed invoices so submitted have to be honoured by the petitioner Concern, within seven working days from the submission date of such invoice. 2. 2. When things stood thus, Mr.Karna Kumar, representing himself as an authorised signatory of respondent No.1, sent a mail dated 23.3.2024 to the NC: 2025:KHC:15017 petitioner Concern, indicating the termination of Feed Processing Agreement dated 8.6.2023, without indicating as to how such termination could be issued without furnishing an appropriate authorization for representing respondent No.1, partnership firm.
The alleged termination, referred in email dated 23.03.2024 is of no consequence. The petitioner-company sought clarification pertaining to the alleged termination. However, till date, no authorization letter in favour of Mr. Karna Kumar is forthcoming.
3. The respondents confiscated the raw materials and goods of the petitioner worth Rs.10,00,000/- on 3.5.2024 on the terms that, their alleged invoice dated 30.4.2024 is not honoured. The respondents also confiscated other belongings of the petitioner, which included 500 kgs. of gunny bags etc. The petitioner got issued a legal notice on 13.5.2024, demanding to surrender the petitioner’s belongings. NC: 2025:KHC:15017
4. The respondent replied. The dispute between the petitioner and the respondents remained unresolved. The dispute between the parties has to be resolved through an Arbitrator as per Clause 16 of the Feed Processing Agreement dated 8.6.2023. Hence, the petitioner issued an arbitration notice dated 27.06.2024 and proposed the names of Hon’ble Justice Sri A V Chandrashekar, Former Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, Sri H V Ramachandra Rao, Retired District Judge and Sri B M Angadi, Retired District Judge, as the Arbitrators. 2. 5. The respondents replied to the said Arbitration notice, disagreeing with the names of the Arbitrators proposed by the petitioner. Hence, this petition.
The respondents have not a filed statement of objections.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. NC: 2025:KHC:15017
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute has arisen between the petitioner and the respondents, and it has to be resolved through an Arbitrator, as there is an arbitration clause in the Feed Processing Agreement dated 8.6.2023 entered into between the parties. He submits that the petitioner has issued an arbitration notice proposing the name of Hon’ble Justice Sri A V Chandrashekar, Former Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, as an Arbitrator. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits no objection to allow the petition and nominate Hon’ble Justice Sri A V Chandrashekar, Former Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, as a sole Arbitrator.
Perused the records.
The point, that arises for consideration is as follows: NC: 2025:KHC:15017 “Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to an Arbitrator as per Clause 16 of the Feed Processing Agreement as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”
The petitioner and the respondents have entered into a Feed Processing Agreement on 8.6.2023 vide document No.
The dispute has arisen between the parties. The said dispute has to be resolved through an Arbitrator. The agreement provides for a ‘dispute resolution clause i.e. Clause No. 16, which reads as follows:
"DISPUTE RESOLUTION: If any dispute or difference arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the Parties shall make good faith efforts to resolve such disputes or differences amicably. If the disputes or differences are not resolved, the same shall be settled through arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 and any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof for the time being in force. The arbitration shall be conducted by a Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the Parties NC: 2025:KHC:15017 mutually within a period of 30 days. If the parties fail to appoint an arbitrator within a period of 30 days, the sole Arbitrator shall be appointed as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitration award shall be final and binding as between the parties hereto. The arbitration proceedings shall be in English and venue of arbitration shall be at Bangalore."
As there is an Arbitration clause in the Agreement, as the respondents submit no objections to allow the petition, and in view of the above discussion, the point for consideration is answered in the affirmative.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER i. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. ii. The Hon’ble Justice Sri A.V.Chandrashekar, Former Judge of the High Court of Karnataka is nominated, as a sole Arbitrator, to resolve the dispute between the parties in terms of Clause 16 of the Feed Processing Agreement dated 08.06.2023, as per the provisions of the Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996. NC: 2025:KHC:15017 iii. The Office is directed to communicate this order, to the learned Arbitrator and to the Arbitration And Conciliation Center, Bengaluru. (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE
rs
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.