Case Brief: Omnia Technologies P. Ltd. v W.M.A. Van Loosbroek

FACTS:

The respondent, a Dutch citizen, entered into an agreement with the petitioner-company whereby the latter appointed him as its marketing representative to promote sale of RFID Tags and Components manufactured by the petitioner-company in European market. Clause (1) of the agreement executed between the parties stipulated the terms on which the respondent was to work as the petitioner’s representative. The agreement in Clauses 2 and 3 thereof set out the obligations which the respondent was to discharge and those to be discharged by the petitioner. Other conditions like remuneration etc. were also stipulated by the agreement including obligations cast upon the parties after termination of the agreement. It is common ground that the agreement in question was terminated by the parties in terms of another agreement executed between the parties. This termination purported to be in conformity with the provisions of Clause 11 of the Original Agreement.

The Petitioner-company’s case in the present petition under Section 11(6) and (9) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is that the respondent has committed a violation of the Original Agreement inasmuch as obligations cast upon the respondent under clause 13 of the agreement have not been discharged by the respondent thereby giving rise to disputes that are in terms of Clause 15 of the original agreement arbitrable. The petitioner-company appears to have invoked the arbitration clause and asked for appointment of an Arbitrator but since the respondent refused to do the needful under Clause 4 of the agreement, the petitioner has filed the present petition and prayed for the appointment of an independent Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the said disputes.

HELD:

Learned counsel for the respondent was, asked by the Court to take instructions whether interpretation of Clause 4 which was by itself a disputed matter and requires to be adjudicated upon, could be left to be determined by the Arbitrator. Learned counsel for the respondent had consented to the appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of all issues including the existence of arbitrable disputes by the Arbitrator so appointed.

The Court, subsequently, allowed the present petition and held that all disputes including the dispute regarding interpretation and effect of Clause 4 of the termination agreement be referred for adjudication by arbitration.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *