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 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 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'”

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. 27th 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 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.

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