Whether court can refer dispute to arbitration if main agreement is terminated?

Be that as it may on and after the receipt of the refund of amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- being advance paid by the petitioner to the respondent, there was no legal recourse resorted to by the petitioner to establish his right under the agreement for sale. The attempt of the petitioner to set up a case that the respondent on his own volition deposited a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs into his Bank Account without the petitioner seeking for refund is a very hard story to believe, more particularly noting the subsequent conduct of the petitioner. Thus, it has to be concluded that the agreement for sale stood terminated for all purposes and the question of contending that the arbitration agreement still continuous to survive is untenable.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

O.P. No. 646 of 2013

Decided On: 18.09.2015

Appellants: B. Murugeswaran
Vs.
Respondent: Amir Jamal and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:T.S. Sivagnanam, J.

Citation:AIR 2016 (NOC)408 Mad

Print Page

When writ petition is not maintainable in case of dispute between contractor and PWD?

 Even   assuming   that   the   learned   counsel   for   the 
petitioner is right in saying that one party to a contract is 
not empowered to determine that the other party to the 
contract   has   committed   a   breach,   or   to   assess 
damages/compensation which it is entitled to under the 
contract, it only means that in such a case, the remedy 
lies in approaching either the Arbitration Tribunal or the 
Civil Court for appropriate relief. A writ petition, in any 
event, is not a remedy available in such a situation.
15. For the above reasons, we are of the view that in 
absence   of   any   dispute   raised   by   the   petitioner 
challenging the decision of recession of contract before 
the   competent   authority,   the   respondent/State   is 
empowered   to   issue   the   demand   for   the   loss   suffered 
either due to awarding of contract to other agency and as 
per terms of the contract, the petitioner is liable to pay 
the said amount.  Thus, the action of the State is just and 
proper.   The writ petition filed by the petitioner has no 
merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
Dated;13.02.2015
W. P.No.7505/2014
Shiv construction thru shiv Narayan pathak v public works department
Citation;AIR 2015 MP HC42

Print Page

When consumer forum can decide dispute relating to Sim deactivation?

We find that the said provision is in respect of dispute between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus has been provided. Present dispute is not between the telegraph authority and Mr.Rajesh. Here the present complaint is filed by Rajesh against Bharati Airtail Ltd. In view of the definition of Telegraph authority as given in Section 3 Sub-section (6) of the Telegraph Act. Bharati Airtel Ltd. is not a telegraph authority and hence, Section 7(B) of the Telegraph Act cannot be attracted in the present matter. As per the said definition as telegraph authority means the Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs and includes any officer empowered by him to perform all or any of the functions of the telegraph authority under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. It is material to note in the authority relied by the Opponent the said complaint was filed against General Manager, Telegraph, which can come under the definition of Telegraph Authority. Thus, on this count itself the said authority is not helpful to the present case.

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Shri Rajesh Ramesh Shende vs Bharti Airtel Ltd. on 24 March, 2014

Citation;2015(2)ALLMR(JOURNAL)103

Print Page

Whether court can refer dispute to arbitration even if there is no proper and valid arbitration agreement?

 In another judgment in the case of Nimet Resources Inc. and Anr. v. Essar Steels Ltd. MANU/SC/0603/2000 : AIR2000SC3107 , the Supreme Court has held as under:

5. Section 7 of the Act sets out what an arbitration agreement is. It could be in different forms - by way of an arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement, but the condition is that an arbitration agreement should be in writing. When an arbitration agreement is not in writing, the same should be construed by reference to : (a) a document signed by the parties; (b) exchange of letters, telex, telegram or other means of communication which provide a record of the agreement; or (c) exchange of statement of claim and defence in which the existence of the agreement is alleged by one party and not denied by the other. If the contract is in writing and the reference is made to a document containing arbitration clause as part of the transaction would mean that the arbitration agreement is part of the contract. Therefore, in a matter where there has been some transaction between the parties and the existence of the arbitration agreement is in challenge the proper course for the parties is to thrash out such question under Section 16 of the Act and not under Section 11 of the Act.

6. Section 7 of the Act explains the meaning of arbitration agreement. It is an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration in a dispute arising from a given contract. It could be inserted into an agreement by way of an arbitration clause and shall be in writing contained in a document. It would be sufficient compliance to these provisions even if such clauses are exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or other means of telecommunication which provide a record of the agreement. The legislative purpose appears to be that the parties consciously and by mutually agree to refer the disputes between them for adjudication to an arbitration tribunal in terms of the contract or constituted as per the arbitration agreement and under the provisions of the Act. Unilateral expression of reference to arbitration would not satisfy the ingredients of this provision. There has to be a clear unambiguous intent on the part of the parties recorded in writing in a contract or by various modes as indicated in Section 7 before a reference can be made. The intent could be gathered from the documents but it has to be a definite expression.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Arbitration Petition No. 26 of 2007

Decided On: 02.05.2008

Appellants: Ashoka Buildcon Ltd.
Vs.
Respondent: Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.

 Citation: 2008(4)ARBLR288(Bom), 2008(5)MhLj67

Print Page

When civil court has jurisdiction to decide dispute relating to co-operative society?

Trusts & Associations - Practice & Procedure - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, ss.45 and 91 - Inherent jurisdiction of Civil Court - To adjudicated cases of cooperative society - Held, u/s.91 of Act to bar Civil Court's jurisdiction, which was otherwise unlimited and was only subject to express and implied bar under statute, it should be dispute touching management of the society and between society, its members or person other than members of the society who had entered into any transaction in respect of which certain restrictions and regulations were prescribed inter alia u/s. 45 of Act - It was held referring to the judgment in SC case that before the dispute could be referred to the Co-operative Court u/s. 91(1) of Act, it was not only essential that the dispute should be of the kind described in the sub-section but also essential that parties to the dispute should be ones specified there under - Marine Times Publications (P) Ltd. Vs. Shriram Transport & Finance Co. Ltd.(1991) 1 SCC 469  Trusts relied on - Hence both the subject matter as also parties should be those specified in the section - It was, therefore, held that if either of the two requirements was not satisfied the dispute could not be adjudicated by the Co-operative Court - Consequently then the Civil Court's jurisdiction would not be barred - It appeared that only circumstance which enabled Cooperative Court to exercise its jurisdiction against such third party was that while adjudicating dispute which was otherwise amenable to its jurisdiction, Cooperative Court concluded that third party acquired some interest in property of one of parties to dispute - Consequently contention on behalf of defendants that as dispute related to management and business of plaintiff- society and was between society, its member and person other than its proposed members being covered u/s.91 of Act, it should be adjudicated in Co-operative Court was incorrect - Civil Court's jurisdiction was not seen to be barred - Thus, preliminary issue was answered in the negative .

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2716 OF 2011
IN
SUIT NO. 2240 OF 2011
Usha Sunder Premises Cooperative
Soceity Ltd.
Vs.
Mr. Nilang Desai & Ors. 

Dated : 29 th APRIL, 2014 .

Print Page