Case Summary
The plaintiffs, M/s.Saj Distributors, filed a suit against the defendants, M/s.Bharti Airtel Limited, seeking to recover an amount based on a distributor agreement. The defendants sought to refer the dispute to arbitration, claiming the agreement contained an arbitration clause.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court referred the matter to arbitration based on the arbitration clause in the distributor agreement, as there existed no dispute that warranted a judicial hearing.
Key Reasoning:
The existing arbitration agreement was valid and covered the disputes between the parties.
The existing arbitration agreement was valid and covered the disputes between the parties.
Why Defendant Won:
The existing arbitration agreement was valid and covered the disputes between the parties.
The existing arbitration agreement was valid and covered the disputes between the parties.
Supporting Evidence
Upon perusal of clause 16 of Ext.A1 agreement it is quite evident that all the disputes arising out of or relating to or in connection with this agreement shall be referred for arbitration.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the subject matter of the suit squarely comes within the purview of arbitration clause and the matter is referred for arbitration.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- M/s.Saj Distributors
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- S.Sajikumar
- Party Age
- 51
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Abraham Jacob Eapen
- Party Age
- 44
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- M/s.Bharti Airtel Limited
- Relation
- Rep by its Chief Executive Officer and Director
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- M/s.Bharti Airtel Limited
- Relation
- Rep by its Authorised Signatory
Plaintiffs Documents
Original agreement dated 20/04/2010
Defendants Documents
Letter dated 23/12/2016, Lawyer notice dated 02/08/2019
Advocates
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.V.S.Bhasurendran Nair
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. J. Harikumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. V. Vinodkumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Neeraj.C.B
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The matter is referred for arbitration as per the agreement.
Evidence:
Hence for the above reasons the petitioner is entitled for the relied as claimed.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Distributor Agreement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document outlines the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant, detailing the obligations and dispute resolution through arbitration.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Letter
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This letter acknowledges an amount due and confirms the cancellation of the agreement between the parties.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Lawyer Notice
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document is related to the lawyer notice issued by the plaintiff claiming the due amount and asserting that no dispute exists for arbitration.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Non-payment of rent
Case Code
Case between M/s.Saj Distributors et al vs M/s.Bharti Airtel Limited et al regarding arbitration of a dispute
Case Code Year
Case between M/s.Saj Distributors et al vs M/s.Bharti Airtel Limited et al regarding arbitration of a dispute