Supreme Court Appoints Arbitrator In Ucon-Utracon Dispute Over 'Utracon' Brand Use, Share Sale Pact

“Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances and the relevant provisions under the subject agreement, especially the fact that the arbitration is to take place in Chennai, India and that it would be procedurally governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, we deem it just and proper to appoint an arbitrator of Indian origin. Hence, the instant Arbitration Petition is allowed, and Justice K. Kannan, former Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, is appointed as the sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties.”

The Court held that issues relating to limitation and arbitrability must be decided by the arbitral tribunal and noted that while dismissing the Section 9 applications on October 30, 2024, the Madras High Court had clarified that its observations would not preclude the parties from seeking arbitration.

“At the stage of an application under Section 11(6) of the Act, the scope of inquiry by this Court is confined to the prima facie examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement. Accordingly, the objections raised by the Respondents with respect to limitation, arbitrability and the scope of the arbitration clause are matters that fall within the exclusive domain of the Arbitral Tribunal, and may be agitated and decided in accordance with law before the learned Arbitrator. We may also note that the Madras High Court, while dismissing the Petitioners' applications under Section 9 of the Act, has expressly clarified that its observations would not preclude the Petitioners from approaching an arbitrator.”

The Court also clarified that the arbitration would remain confined to disputes arising from the Sale of Shares Agreement dated March 22, 2012 and would have no bearing on the intellectual property suit pending before the Delhi High Court concerning use of the Utracon name and logo.

The dispute arose after Ucon PT Structural System alleged that Utracon Corporation PTE and related entities violated a ten-year non-compete clause under the March 22, 2012 Sale of Shares Agreement by incorporating Utracon Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. in India and using the “Utracon” trade name and logo for a competing business.

Ucon's interim relief applications were dismissed by the Madras High Court on October 30, 2024, though review orders dated April 2, 2025 clarified that arbitration could still be pursued.

Meanwhile, Utracon entities obtained an ex parte injunction from the Delhi High Court in 2024 restraining Ucon from using the Utracon name and logo.

While allowing the petition, the Supreme Court directed the parties to raise all the objections and contentions before the arbitrator.

For Petitioner: Advocates Naveen Kumar Murthy, Vishnu Priyan, Aman Gupta, Srishti Ghoshal, Siddhartha Iyer, AOR

For Respondent: Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnararayan with Advocates Sukrit Kapoor, Himanshu Deora, Garima Singh, Samarth Kapoor, Tanya Kumari, Aditi Gupta, Smruthi Gangadhar, Shivam Nagpal, Rasika Nagpal, Divyanshu Kumar Srivastava, AOR