Devineni Ramesh Babu v. Rep.by its Proprietor – M.Amba Prasad

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Arbitration Application No.24 of 2011 ORDER:- This application has been taken out by Devineni Ramesh Babu under sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for resolution of the disputes that have arisen regarding payments of amount relatable to the Memorandum of Understandings dated 14-6-2000 and 21-5-

2002. The case of the applicant, as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the application, in brief, is as follows:- The respondent is dealing with supply of different items to Indian Railways. The respondent approached the applicant seeking his help for getting necessary approval at different levels from the competent authorities. A Memorandum of Understanding came to be entered on 14-6-2000. The validity period of the Memorandum of Understanding initially for a period of one year. Subsequently another Memorandum of Understanding came to be entered between the applicant and the respondent on 21-5-2002 wherein the respondent appointed the applicant as Liaison Officer for procurement of Purchase Orders of Anti Sabotage Device in all the Zones of Indian Railways. The respondent agreed to pay Rs.3/- per each piece of ASD towards T.A., D.A., and other expenses within 30 days on receipt of procurement order from the Indian Railways.

The respondent also agreed to pay Rs.5/- per piece of ASD as an incentive towards the services rendered in getting the Purchase Orders from different Zones of Indian Railways. The applicant secured several orders from Northern Railway, South Central Railway and North Frontier Railway. The applicant sought for settlement of his dues from the respondent. The respondent refused to oblige the applicant and thereby the applicant issued a notice dated 9- 6-2010 invoking the arbitration clause in the Memorandum of Understanding for resolution of the disputes. Though the respondent received the notice, it neither nominated the Arbitrator nor issued any reply denying the claim of the applicant. Hence, this application. Notice to the respondent came to be ordered on 1-4-2011. The applicant was permitted to take out notice to the respondent by RPAD and file proof of service. Accordingly, the applicant took out notice and filed proof stating that article was delivered to the addressee on 14-6- 2011 vide letter dated 9-12-2011 of the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Hyderabad South East Division, Hyderabad.

Despite notice being served on the respondent, none appears on his behalf. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and perused the material brought on record. As per the Memorandum of Understanding dated 21-5-2002 the disputes between the parties are required to be settled my mutual discussions or through arbitration. The applicant invoked the arbitration clause and requested the respondent to suggest the name of the Arbitrator to resolve the disputes. The respondent having received the notice neither denied the liability nor proposed the name of the Arbitrator. In that view of the matter, I find that the applicant made out a valid ground for appointment of Arbitrator for resolution of the disputes relatable to the Memorandum of Agreement dated 21-5-