Summary of the Opinion — Vipin Sanghi, C.J.

Factual and Procedural Background

The parties entered into a Super Distributor Agreement dated 02.01.2012 under which the respondent was appointed as Super Distributor for distribution of the applicant's products. The agreement contains an arbitration clause which stated that "all disputes will be settled through arbitrator appointed by PAL in Haridwar" (PAL meaning Patanjali Ayurved Limited, the applicant). The applicant asserted that it cannot appoint an arbitrator in its own cause and, on 12.03.2022, invoked the arbitration agreement proposing three names for the arbitrator; the respondent did not consent to any of those names. An arbitration petition filed by the respondent before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (Arbitration Petition No. 27 of 2022) was disposed of for lack of territorial jurisdiction. In the present proceedings the respondent had not filed a reply at the time of the hearing, although counsel stated the reply was ready and was ordered to be filed during the course of the day. The court inquired of the parties' positions regarding appointment of an arbitrator.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether an arbitrator should be appointed to adjudicate the disputes arising under the Super Distributor Agreement dated 02.01.2012.
2. Whether the arbitrator to be appointed may be from Orissa or Delhi (location/preference raised by the respondent) and whether the Court may appoint an arbitrator stationed at Delhi.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

• The respondent had no objection to the appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes under the Super Distributor Agreement dated 02.01.2012.
• The respondent requested that the Arbitrator may be appointed either from Orissa or from Delhi, on account of the respondent being situated in Orissa.

Applicant's Arguments

• The applicant relied on the arbitration clause in the Super Distributor Agreement and submitted that it could not itself appoint an arbitrator in its own cause.
• The applicant invoked the arbitration agreement on 12.03.2022 and suggested three names from which one could be appointed, but the respondent did not consent to any suggested name.
• The applicant had no objection to the Court appointing an arbitrator who is stationed at Delhi.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court noted that no reply had been filed by the respondent, but was informed by respondent's counsel that the reply was ready and ordered it to be filed during the course of the day. The court then asked counsel for the respondent its stance on appointment of an arbitrator. Respondent's counsel stated there was no objection to the appointment of an arbitrator, subject to the arbitrator being from Orissa or Delhi. Counsel for the applicant confirmed no objection to the Court appointing an arbitrator stationed in Delhi.

The court recorded the applicant's factual position that the parties had an arbitration clause in their agreement which purported to permit the applicant to appoint an arbitrator in Haridwar, but that the applicant could not appoint an arbitrator in its own cause and had therefore proposed three names to the respondent, none of which the respondent accepted. The court also recorded that the respondent's arbitration petition in Orissa had been disposed of for lack of territorial jurisdiction. On this basis — i.e., the existence of an arbitration clause, the parties' stated positions at the hearing, and the prior disposal for lack of territorial jurisdiction — the court proceeded to appoint an arbitrator.

Holding and Implications

The application is allowed and the Court appointed Ms. Justice Mukta Gupta, Retd. Judge, High Court of Delhi, (Mobile No. 9650788600), as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties under the Super Distributor Agreement dated 02.01.2012.

Consequences and immediate effects:

• The present application stands disposed of in the terms recorded by the Court.
• Any pending applications also stand disposed of.

The opinion does not elaborate broader legal implications or state that any new precedent is being created; the decision effects the appointment of the named arbitrator and disposal of the listed applications only.