RADICO KHAITAN LIMITED vs HARISH CHOUHAN

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 04.03.2025 + ARB.P. 1560/2024 RADICO KHAITAN LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Kamal Garg, Advocate versus HARISH CHOUHAN .....Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. By way of present petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘A&C Act’), the petitioner seeks appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a Sole Arbitrator, to adjudicate upon the disputes that have arisen between the parties. 2. The respondent along with his son, Mr. Sumit Chauhan, entered into a business transaction with the petitioner wherein against the purchase orders issued the petitioner supplied alcoholic beverages to the respondent and his son. In pursuance of the same, various tax invoices were issued in the name of the respondent, either by the petitioner or by its subsidiary, associated or sister concerns/units and the subject goods were supplied thereof. 3. Disputes arose between the parties with respect to the various tax Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed ARB.P. 1560/2024 Page 1 of 11 By:GAUTAM ASWAL Signing Date:19.03.2025 19:18:10 invoices dated 29.11.2020, 09.12.2020, 15.12.2020, 28.12.2020 and 22.01.2021. Under the ‘Terms & Conditions’ printed on the aforesaid invoices, Clause 5 provided for reference of disputes arising between the parties to arbitration by a Sole Arbitrator and further stipulated Delhi to be the seat of arbitration. The same is reproduced hereinunder: “5. Any dispute (whether contractual or otherwise) arising out of this transaction between the parties or arising out of or relating to or in connection with this invoice shall be referred for arbitration in terms of Arbitration an