Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 - suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits against the petitioner though there is an arbitration clause in the agreement - in para-3 of the plaint that there was an agreement between the petitioner and respondents for appointment of one P.V.Subba Rao as arbitrator for interpretation of the agreement.-In view of the arbitration clause, the dispute before the civil Court has to be referred to the arbitrator to settle the dispute between the petitioner and respondents - the trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the arbitral dispute is only for interpretation of terms of agreement but not for resolving any other disputes. Therefore, the dispute for recovery of possession and mesne profits is beyond the scope of arbitration clause and dismissed the petition.- According to Section 8(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, any application for reference of dispute mentioned in clause (1) shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof - this Court cannot exercise its discretionary power under Section 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere in the order in question. as it is only interpretation of a document.- 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports



The petitioner/defendant filed a petition under Section 8
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (in brief the Act),
alleging that the respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit
for recovery of possession and mesne profits against the petitioner
though there is an arbitration clause in the agreement.

It is specifically
contended that the respondents pleaded in para-3 of the plaint
that there was an agreement between the petitioner and
respondents for appointment of one P.V.Subba Rao as arbitrator
for interpretation of the agreement.

In view of the arbitration
clause, the dispute before the civil Court has to be referred to
the arbitrator to settle the dispute between the petitioner and
respondents, as the respondents themselves admitted about
arbitration clause for referring the dispute to P.Subba Rao and
the suit is not maintainable before a civil Court.

Hence, the
petitioner sought to refer the matter to arbitrator, invoking
arbitration clause contained in the agreement as pleaded by the
respondents and prayed to refer the dispute between the
petitioner and respondents to the arbitrator, P.Subba Rao for
settlement and to grant of stay of all further proceedings.

 Upon hearing argument of both the counsel, the trial
Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the arbitral
dispute is only for interpretation of terms of agreement but not
for resolving any other disputes.  Therefore, the dispute for
recovery of possession and mesne profits is beyond the scope of
arbitration clause and dismissed the petition.

Whether the arbitration clause covered reference of the
dispute relating to delivery of possession and mesne profits, if
not, is the impugned order be sustained?

. In the following circumstances this Court cannot
exercise its discretion under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India:
a)      Where the only question involved is one of interpretation of
deed (New Gujarat Cotton Mills Ltd. vs Labour Appellate
Tribunal ).
b)      On question of admission or rejection of particular piece of
evidence, even though the question may be of everyday
recurrence.
c)      To correct erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, as a Court of
revision.
d)      To set aside an intra vires finding of the fact, except where
it is founded on no material or is perverse.
e)      to correct an error of law, not being an error apparent on
the face of the record
f)      to interfere with the intravires exercise of discretionary
power, unless it is violative of principles of natural justice
g)      The Court shall not interfere on a merely technical ground
which would not advance substantial justice.

It is clear from Section 7 of the Act that the exchange
of statements, letters etc., is sufficient to accept the existence
of agreement for reference to arbitrator.

 In the present case, in para 3 of the plaint, there is a
reference of understanding dated 21.07.2009 which consists of
clauses (i) to (ix).  Clause No.(viii) is the relevant clause.

Para 3
of the plaint did not spell out whether the understanding was
reduced into writing and signed by the parties or not.  When the
agreement is not in writing and it is only an understanding, the
alleged condition of agreement for reference would not fall
within the ambit of Section 7 of the Act.
 According to Section 8(2) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, any application for
reference of dispute mentioned in clause (1) shall not be
entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration
agreement or a duly certified copy thereof
In any view of the
matter, it is for the revision petitioner to file, if there is an
understanding in writing duly signed by both parties along with
the petition.

However, it is wholly unnecessary for us to decide
about maintainability of the petition in view of bar to entertain
petition under Section 8(2) of the Act, as the petitioner himself
admitted about the understanding and that apart we have
already concluded in the earlier paras that this Court cannot
exercise its discretionary power under Section 227 of the
Constitution of India to interfere in the order in question.

  In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no ground
or legal infirmity which calls for interference of this Court,
devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.-2015 Telanga & A.P. msklawreports

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.