Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Arbitrator Appointment In Gini & Jony–Benetton Dispute

Counsel appearing for Gini & Jony argued that three settlement agreements of 2016, 2019, and 2020 govern the dispute and contain an arbitration clause; hence, under Section 11's limited scope, the court should simply appoint an arbitrator.

Justice Maheshwari said, “You are harping upon the subsequent settlement after this initial agreement. The agreement says if subsequent settlement is there, even then if dispute remains and Section 11 is exercised by the high court, what is wrong in this.”

It was argued that, within the limited scope of Section 11, the court should confine itself to the existence of an arbitration agreement and appoint an arbitrator, leaving all other issues to be decided in arbitration. The counsel also indicated that the dispute involves a relatively small amount and could, if the court deems fit, be explored through mediation.

Denying the request for mediation, Justice Maheshwari referring to Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, said, “Raise all these points before the arbitrator. Go there and request to the arbitrator. Go for mediation.”

Background

The dispute between Benetton India Pvt Ltd and Gini and Jony stems from a Distribution Agreement dated August 1, 2014, under which Gini and Jony acted as a distributor but allegedly defaulted on payments of about Rs. 8.97 crore.

Subsequent settlement agreements in 2016, 2019 and 2020 restructured dues, but around Rs. 91.21 lakh remained unpaid in 2024, leading Benetton to invoke arbitration in March 2024.

Before the Delhi High Court, Benetton argued that the original arbitration clause survived, while Gini and Jony claimed the settlement agreements replaced it. On February 26, 2026, the High Court held that such issues of novation require detailed examination and must be decided by the arbitrator.

With the Supreme Court dismissing the SLP, the Delhi High Court's order appointing an arbitrator stands confirmed.