Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

ARBITRATION CASE (CIVIL) NO.8 OF 2015

M/S SUPREMA INC     ...PETITIONER

VERSUS

4G IDENTITY SOLUTIONS  PVT. LTD.      ...RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

1. The petitioner  Company which is  incorporated under

the laws of the Republic of Korea carries on the business of

biometrics  research,  development  and  manufacturing.   It

has  invoked  the  jurisdiction  of  this  Court  under  Section

11(6)  of  the  Arbitration  and  Conciliation  Act,  1996

(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for appointment of an

arbitrator to go into the disputes and differences that have

arisen  with  the  respondent  Company  which  is  a  private

limited company incorporated in India under the Companies

Page 2

2

Act, 1956.

2. The averments made in the present application would

go  to  show  that  pursuant  to  the  contract  awarded  by

Electronics Corporation of India Limited (hereinafter referred

to as “the ECIL”) to the respondent Company for supply of

Real Scanner G 10 fingerprint scanner (hereinafter referred

to as “the product”) the respondent Company in turn entered

into an agreement with the petitioner Company for supply of

10,500 units of the product in question.

3. According  to  the  petitioner  Company,  the  aforesaid

10,500 units of the product was duly supplied and delivered

to the respondent Company and bills totalling a sum of USD

3,212,000 were raised on the respondent for payment.

4. The efforts of  the petitioner to receive payment of  its

Bills  for  supply  of  the  product  did  not  succeed.

Consequently,  the  petitioner  issued  notice  of  arbitration

dated  20th June,  2013 to  the  respondent  in  terms of  the

Page 3

3

Master Agreement dated 15th July, 2011 entered into by and

between the parties.  The said reference to the Arbitration

was in terms of Article 16 of the aforesaid Master Agreement.

5. Pursuant  thereto,  arbitration  commenced  under  the

Singapore International Arbitration Act.  The proceedings in

Arbitration  were  objected  to  by  the  respondent  on  the

ground  that  the  Singapore  Arbitral  Tribunal  had  no

jurisdiction  as  the  purchase  orders  in  question  had  no

connection with the Master  Agreement.   In the objections

raised by the respondent it  was,  however,  stated that  the

purchase  orders  though  not  relatable  to  the  Master

Agreement  were  governed by  the Supply  Agreement.   The

Supply  Agreement  contained  a  specific  dispute  resolution

clause i.e. D12 which is to the following effect:

“All disputes and differences arising in connection with  this  contract  shall  be  referred  to  'the arbitration  authority  under  provisions  of  the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996'”

Page 4

4

6. Accordingly,  the  Singapore  Arbitral  Tribunal  by  an

award dated 8th April, 2014 held that it had no jurisdiction

to decide the dispute.  In the aforesaid circumstances,  the

present petition has been filed seeking appointment of  an

Arbitrator.

7. We have heard Shri Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, learned

counsel for the petitioner.  In spite of due service of notice,

the  respondent  is  not  represented.   Though  the  petition

could have been heard ex parte on the date fixed i.e. 27 th

April,  2015,  a  further  opportunity  was  granted  to  the

respondent and the case was adjourned to 11th May, 2015.

Even on 11th May, 2015 there is no representation on behalf

of the respondent.  In the above circumstances, there is no

option but to proceed ex parte  against the respondent in the

matter.

8. On  a  consideration  of  the  averments  made  in  the

present  arbitration  petition  and  the  oral  submissions

advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear

Page 5

5

that  disputes  and  differences  have  arisen  between  the

parties  with regard to  the  entitlement  of  the  petitioner  to

receive the amount of bills raised by it i.e. USD 3,212,000.

Clause D12 of the Supply Agreement, which according to the

respondent,  governs  the  matter  specifically  provides  for

reference of all disputes and differences to “the arbitration

authority  under  provisions  of  the  Arbitration  and

Conciliation Act, 1996”.

9. In  the  above  view  of  the  matter,  there  can  be  no

manner of doubt that the petitioner is entitled to have its

claim to receive the aforesaid amount of the bills adjudicated

by an Arbitrator appointed by the Court under Section 11(6)

of the Act.  Consequently, we allow the present petition

and  appoint  Shri  Justice  B.  Sudershan  Reddy,  a  former

judge  of  this  Court  as  the  Arbitrator  and request  him to

resolve the dispute between the parties at an early date.  The

terms of appointment of Shri Justice B. Sudershan Reddy as

the Arbitrator will be settled in consultation with the parties.

Page 6

6

10. Let  this  order  be  communicated  to  the  learned

Arbitrator so that the arbitration proceedings can commence

and conclude as expeditiously as possible.

11. The  arbitration  petition  is  disposed  of  in  the  above

terms.

................................J.  (RANJAN GOGOI)

NEW DELHI MAY 13, 2015