Venue of Arbitration – Mumbai shown in the invoice of applicant-supplier and Kolkatta in the purchase order of respondent
Judgment dated 14.9.2023 in Arbitration Application NO.250 of 2021
Parekh Plastichem Distributors LLP Vs. Simplex Infrastructure Limited
The applicant – supplier of various chemicals, commodities and construction related admixtures – had been regularly supplying Callipar brand Micro Silica to the respondent (based in Kolkatta) since 2019 on purchase orders being raised on it. On delivery of supplies, the applicant had raised several invoices for such supplies.
The case of the applicant is that after adjusting certain payments made by the respondent towards invoices, a sum of Rs.21,78,910/- is due and payable which are not paid despite several reminders.
By the notice dated 15.7.2021, the arbitration clause was invoked and Section 11 of the Arbitration Act application for appointment of Arbitrator.
The applicant had filed two invoices with the application. Pursuant to the order dated 9.8.2023 of the Court, the applicant had produced 11 invoices corresponding to the purchase orders.
Clauses 3 and 4 of Invoice the venue of Arbitration is shown at Mumbai and the Courts in Mumbai would have exclusive jurisdiction.
Purchase orders issued by the respondent show the venue of Kolkatta and also jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court and Courts thereunder for arbitration.
Question was whether the invoice of the applicant would supersede the purchase order of the respondent.
HELD that the parties were bound by the arbitration clause contained in the purchase orders issued by the respondent on the ground that they constitute main agreement between the parties on which the applicant had to supply goods to the respondent. The purchase orders contained description of the goods, quantity, rate, delivery schedule, tax and fees schedule, terms of payment, inspection site, test certificate, delivery place and other terms and conditions. The elaborate reasons therefor are given in para 23 of the judgment. The application was dismissed.
Invoices reserving jurisdiction should supercede P.O. which was not signed by seller