EV Three-Wheeler Exclusivity Dispute: Supreme Court Appoints Justice R.V. Raveendran as Sole Arbitrator

Case at a Glance

In a dispute over exclusivity and non-compete clauses in an electric three-wheeler manufacturing arrangement, the Supreme Court has, at the joint request of both sides, appointed former Supreme Court Judge Justice R.V. Raveendran as sole arbitrator. Pending a Section 17 application before him, it restrained the respondent from launching or manufacturing the vehicles described in the agreement’s annexures.

The parties signed a Manufacturing Agreement, a Supply and Distribution Agreement and an Intellectual Property Agreement, under which the respondent was to exclusively manufacture vehicles for the appellant for a stated term of twenty years. The appellant said the respondent’s Mayuri-branded vehicles, including the Mayuri Rattan, and proposed new vehicles breached the exclusivity and non-compete obligations; the respondent said these were a pre-existing business and the arrangement had not commenced because no purchase order had issued.

On 6 August 2026 the Commercial Court, Bengaluru granted Section 9 interim measures restraining the respondent from launching similar new vehicles and from continuing existing Mayuri auto-shaped three-wheeler EVs. At the first hearing on 20 August 2026, the Karnataka High Court stayed that order, noting the joint venture had not “taken off”, while barring any new launch and directing accounts to be kept.

The Key Question Before the Court

How should interim protection be handled in a commercial exclusivity dispute when both parties agree to go to arbitration?

From Section 9 Court to the Arbitral Tribunal

Before the Supreme Court, senior counsel for both sides jointly requested appointment of a sole arbitrator in place of the three-member tribunal contemplated, proposed Justice R.V. Raveendran, and undertook to seek interim relief under Section 17 before him. The Court held that constituting the tribunal “would be the appropriate course of action at this stage.”

The judgment does not examine the merits of the contract dispute or the interim-relief questions. It modified paragraph 12 of the High Court’s order so that, until orders on the Section 17 application, the respondent will not launch or manufacture the vehicles described in Annexures A and B read with Clause 1.1, leaving the rest of that paragraph undisturbed.

What the Court Actually Held

• Justice R.V. Raveendran was requested to act as sole arbitrator.
• The parties may file a Section 17 application for interim measures before the tribunal.
• Until then, the respondent will not launch or manufacture the vehicles described in Annexures A and B read with Clause 1.1.
• The arbitrator is to decide the Section 17 application uninfluenced by observations in the earlier orders, and the appeal was disposed of.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It shows the Supreme Court routing a live commercial dispute quickly to arbitration by consent.
• It preserves a calibrated interim arrangement until the tribunal rules.
• It leaves the merits of exclusivity and non-compete clauses to the arbitrator.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Commercial Litigants

• Consider jointly seeking a sole arbitrator to cut short parallel Section 9 litigation.
• Frame interim restraints by reference to the contract’s own definitions and annexures.

For Arbitrators and Counsel

• Section 17 applications should be decided afresh, without being influenced by court observations.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

Justice R.V. Raveendran, former Judge of the Supreme Court, at the parties’ joint request.

The Court restricted launching or manufacturing the vehicles in Annexures A and B read with Clause 1.1; the rest of the High Court’s paragraph 12 remains, and the tribunal will decide interim relief.

No. It did not analyse the merits.

Conclusion