BEFORE THE HONBLE SOLE ARBITRATOR

SHRI PADMAKAR GARAD, AT MUMBAI

ARBITRATION CLAIM
BETWEEN:
1. Mahindra Logistics Limited
Mahindra Towers
#17 & 18, Pattulos Road
Chennai- 600002
AND
2. M/S R.B. Saxena & sons

Arbitration Claim of the Claimants:

To,
The Honble Arbitrator
Most respectfully showeth:
1. That the Claimant is a company incorporated under the
provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the
business of providing integrated logistics services to any
person including businesses requiring such services.
2. That the Respondent is a sole proprietorship enterprise run
by Mr. Pradeep Saxena, who is engaged in the business of
transportation and related services and had approached the
claimants as the service provider for providing services to the
client of the claimant namely HCL technologies ltd. and
ADOBE.
3. That the parties entered into an agreement dated 21.07.2014
whereby the respondent was to provide 50 vehicles for
transportation services to the claimants customer i.e. HCL
technologies ltd. For a fixed term of 3 months. They also

entered into an agreement dated 04.08.2014 for proving

transportation services to claimants customers i.e. ADOBE
for a fixed term of 3 months.
4. That the respondent wished to expand his business and
willingly signed further contracts dated 16.10.2014 and
22.11.2014 with his full consent to provide transportation
services to the claimants customers. Agreement dated
16.10.2014 signed between the parties was a shortterm agreement and was in continuation of the earlier
agreement dated 21.07.2014. The abovementioned
agreement

was

executed

particularly

to

provide

transportation facility to our client HCL. The same

agreement was subsequently superseded by the
agreement dated 22.11.2014.
5. That the respondent was unable to fulfill the conditions
mentioned in the contract and was not able to do timely
delivery of vehicles which amounted to deliberate
breach of contract by respondent which caused huge
financial loss to the Claimant Company. Furthermore,
the claimant company has suffered financially and also
lost goodwill in the market due to inefficient working of
the respondent and no further clients are willing to work
with us due to lack of efficient and timely services on
our part.
6. That the respondent wrongly charged the amount
mentioned in the bills and thus, was returned by
claimant for the correction of amount and paid the
revised amount in bill no. 986, 969, and 970.
7. That the claimant made various payments to the respondent
by way of several Cheques. The details of the cheque and
payments made by claimant are as follows:

Cheque number

Date

Amount

786702

17/10/2014

Rs48,455/-

786702

17/10/2014

Rs4,40,529/-

786391

17/10/2014

Rs5,00,000/-

The amount as stated above is what was actually due to the

petitioner, and accordingly the same was disbursed to the
petitioner
8. That the following bills were raised by the respondent.

Bill no.

Dated

Amount

1012

14/11/2014

Rs.8,40,505/-

1013

15/12/2014

Rs.2,44,410/-

1014

15/12/2014

Rs.5,84,430/-

1015

14/11/2014

Rs.28, 335/-.

9. That the claimant made a payment of Rs.22, 54,115/- (an

amount more than the billed amount including the entire
outstanding amount due till date) to the petitioner in the
month of November 2014.
10.That the respondent had asked the claimant to lend him a
sum of Rs.10 lakhs @ 36% p.a. as financial help which the
respondent forwarded to the petitioner in good faith.
11.That the respondent worked in contrary to the contract and
did not followed the terms of the contract, and there were
always a change in modus operandi from Respondents end,
which was contrary to the service agreement, specifically to
conditions laid down for safety and compliance specially
hiring of salaried ESI/PF Drivers with BGC checking.
However, despite of regular follow-ups, no proof of Drivers
ESI/PF payment and background check had been submitted

by the Respondent. It is pertinent to state that the respondent

had intermediately changed its operating model while
shifting part of the fleet to contracted drivers without any pre
intimation to the claimant. The background check and police
verification of the drivers did not place by the respondent
leading to big safety risk to the customers of the claimant and
amounts to breach of contract.
12. That the claimant suffered huge losses due to sudden
termination of services by the respondent in August,2015, as
no reasons were assigned by the respondent for the same..
13.That due to the unprofessional conduct of the respondent,
claimant faced various financial losses as were imposed
penalties through his customers due to deficiency in services
by the respondent, also there was loss of reputation of the
claimant as respondent was working on behalf of them.
14.That the claimants relation with its customers and its
goodwill in the market was tarnished due to negligent and
unethical behavior of the respondent.
15. That the claimant is bound to claim the following amount
from the respondent in order to settle the dispute arising out
of the contract between both the parties:-

Financial help/ loan amount

Loan amount
Interest @ 36% p.a
Total

10,00,000

Excess bill amount paid

5,56,435
Total
Financial loss due to penalty
imposed
Net Principal Due from M/S
R.B. Saxena & sons.

16.That the claimants have tried all modes of conciliation but

the respondents are not willing to settle the dispute. Thus the
claimants are raising the present dispute before this Honble
Arbitral Tribunal as provided for under Article __ of the
agreement dated 21.07.2014 as well as Article __ of the
agreement dated 04.08.2014, 16.10.2014 and 29.11.2014
17.That the dispute relates to the excess amount made during the
transactions of the agreements for the clients of the claimant
namely; HCL Technologies ltd. And ADOBE. Therefore, the
said dispute is within the jurisdiction of this Honble
Tribunal as the arbitration clause of the agreements clearly
provide as under;
In the event that any dispute arises between the
Parties in connection with this agreement, the
construction of any provision of this Agreement or the
rights, duties or liabilities of the Parties hereto either
Party may give to the other Party written notice of the
existence of a dispute and may call a meeting to
resolve the same. Such meeting shall be held within
fourteen(14) days of the date of such notice(unless
otherwise agreed) and will be attended to by the senior
management of both the Parties(who have the
authority to agree on action(s) to be taken to resolve
the dispute amicably.

If mutual resolution cannot be reached within

30(thirty) days of such meeting the Parties shall be at
liberty to refer the dispute for arbitration to be
conducted as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996. MLL shall appoint of a sole arbitrator. The
venue of arbitration shall be Mumbai only. The

arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in English.

Any award made in such arbitration shall be final and
binding on both the parties.

PRAYER
Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
it is most respectfully that this Honble Tribunal may
graciously be pleased to;
A. Pass an award and direct the respondents to pay Rs
_________(Rupees _________________ only) to the
claimants with an interest of 12% per month from
______,2016 till recovery; and
B. Pass and award for the for the financial losses suffered by
the Claimant due to the breach of the contract by the
Respondent amounting to Rs.(ask company
to provide details)
C. Pass any such other order as this Honble Forum may
deem appropriate.

Documents relied upon: