Cofco International INDIA PVT LTD vs. Chanda Enterprises

Facts

The petitioner, COFCO International India Pvt Ltd, filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator. The dispute arose from a sales contract for the purchase of 500 MT of imported soyabean meal. The contract initially stipulated a rate of Rs. 64,500/- per MT plus GST, with a delivery period from September 23, 2021, to September 30, 2021. The rate was later reduced to Rs. 61,000/- per MT, and the delivery date extended to October 6, 2021. The petitioner contends that the respondent, Chanda Enterprises, breached the contract by refusing delivery, leading the petitioner to sell the commodity to third parties and incur a loss. The respondent was served with the petition but did not appear.

Held

The Court held that an arbitration agreement exists between the parties. The petitioner's submission that the sales contract containing the arbitration clause was duly signed by the respondent and accepted by the petitioner via email was not controverted by the respondent. Therefore, there was no impediment to allowing the petition. The Court appointed Mr. Dhruv Tamta, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes. The Arbitrator is required to furnish requisite disclosures under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The parties are to share the arbitrator's fee and costs equally. The respondent is granted liberty to raise all preliminary objections regarding the maintainability and arbitrability of the claims before the Arbitrator, which shall be decided in accordance with law. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claims. The petition was disposed of.

Key Issues

1. Whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties, as contemplated by Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, given that the sales contract containing the arbitration clause was allegedly signed by the respondent and accepted by the petitioner via email? The petitioner argued that the sales contract, which includes an arbitration clause, was duly signed on behalf of the respondent and sent to the petitioner via email, and subsequently accepted. The petitioner submitted that the existence of this signed arbitration agreement presents no impediment to appointing a Sole Arbitrator. The respondent did not present any arguments as none appeared on their behalf.