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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more