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

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more