Skip to main content

Cannot arbitrate where there is no dispute with the contract or agreement

In Ahuja Builders Vs. Doonvalley Technopolis Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi High Court said that if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties and any dispute arising under the Contract is needed to be referred to the Arbitrator. Under Clause 13 of said Contract Agreement, what is referable is 'a dispute arising out of or in any way connected with Contract Agreement'. But for referral the existence of 'Dispute' is sine qua non. The money payable under the Contract was calculated by the Defendant and the calculation is accepted by the Plaintiff as it is, there exists no dispute between them in relation to the terms of Contract. The applicant/Defendant has also not contended anywhere that, there is any dispute between the parties relating to the amount payable under the Contract or of any other nature. Its plea is based on mere existence of arbitration Clause 13 in the Contract.

Therefore the present suit is filed for the recovery of the said amount under Order XXXVII of CPC. It is a simple case of recovery of money based on acknowledgement and undertaking to pay. In view of these facts, it is clear that none of the parties has raised any dispute arising out of the said Contract. When there is no dispute between the parties relating to the contract containing an arbitration clause, the arbitration clause cannot be invoked.

As a matter of fact, on fulfillment of conditions of Section 8, no option is left to the court and the court has to refer the parties to arbitration. In this case, the Defendant/Applicant has not so far raised any dispute relating to the terms and conditions of the Contract Agreement.

The law propounded in both Nathani case and National Insurance case by the Supreme Court is that, on voluntary settlement between the parties leaving no outstanding claim or pending disputes, the Contract stands discharged as to the satisfaction of both the parties and there exists no arbitrable dispute. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, there exists no dispute to refer for arbitration in terms of Section 8 of Act. The application has no merit and the same is dismissed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more