MS. TAYAL AGENCIES THROUGH ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR vs KENDRIYA BHANDAR

Judgment text excerpt

$~O-1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 1768/2024 Date of Decision: 20.03.2025 IN THE MATTER OF: MS. TAYAL AGENCIES THROUGH ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankur Sood, Mr. Dhaman Trivedi and Ms. Romila Mandal, Advs. versus KENDRIYA BHANDAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. D. K. Nag and Mr. Fahad Imtiaz, Advs. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) 1. The facts of the case would indicate that in the year 1997, the petitioner-proprietorship firm had filed an application for empanelment with the respondent as a supplier of various goods. 2. Thereafter, as per the petition, the petitioner-proprietorship firm continued to have business with the respondent and consequently, there have been various supplies and payments. It appears that in the year 2017, the father of the petitioner who was the sole proprietor then, expired and Mr Rajesh Kumar, being the son, entered into the shoes of his father. He, thereafter, became the sole proprietor of the firm. Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRIYA Digitally Signed Signing Date:27.03.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA 12:43:38 KUMAR KAURAV 3. It is the case of the petitioner that even after the demise of his father in the year 2017, business continued with the respondent on the basis of the earlier empanelment. It is also stated that the respondent was to make the payment of a certain outstanding amount and on its failure, the petitioner issued a legal notice. According to the petitioner, despite the aforesaid, the payment has still not been made and therefore, the instant petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been preferred. Mr. Ankur Sood, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted tha