In Brief
A Chinese elevator components manufacturer sought appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes with an Indian partnership firm under a 'Commission Processing Contract' dated 2014. The contract's dispute clause stated that after failed consultation, disputes should go to "arbitration body for arbitration or the court." The respondent opposed arbitration, arguing the clause was not an exclusive arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court held that the clause, though offering both options, manifested the parties' intention to resolve disputes amicably first, then through either arbitration or litigation. The petitioner's election to proceed to arbitration was valid and enforceable. The Court appointed a retired judge as sole arbitrator and allowed the petition."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.