9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit. 2. Existence and validity of the arbitration agreement. 3. Jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. 4. Reliefs sought by the plaintiff. Summary: 1. Maintainability of the Suit: The court expressed doubts about the maintainability of the suit, referencing the case of Roshan Lal Gupta v. Sh. Parasram Holdings Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that a suit for declaration that an agreement containing an arbitration clause was void and for perpetual injunction restraining arbitration proceedings did not lie. The court emphasized that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly Sections 5 and 16, confers the power on the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction, including the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. 2. Existence and Validity of the Arbitration Agreement: The plaintiff argued that there was no written arbitration agreement and that the brokers involved were agents of the defendant, not the plaintiff. The court noted that whether the brokers were agents of the plaintiff or the defendant and whether there was any written agreement involving an arbitration clause should be determined by the arbitral tribunal, not the court. 3. Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal: The plaintiff contended that Sections 5 and 16 of the Arbitration Act apply only to domestic arbitration and not to international commercial arbitration. However, the court referred to Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A., which held that the provisions of Part I of the Arbitration Act apply to all arbitrations, including international commercial arbitrations, unless expressly excluded by the parties. The court also cited Venture Global Engineering v. Satyam Computers Services Ltd., which upheld the non-maintainability of a suit challenging an arbitral award, suggesting that such matters should be addressed within the arbitration framework. 4. Reliefs Sought by the Plaintiff: The plaintiff sought declarations that the initiation of arbitration proceedings was null and void, that the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction, and that the sales contracts were void. The plaintiff also sought an injunction to restrain the defendants from proceeding with arbitration. The court held that these reliefs fall within the domain of the Specific Relief Act and are discretionary, available only when there is no alternative efficacious remedy. Since the plaintiff could raise these issues before the arbitral tribunal, the court found the suit to be not maintainable. Conclusion: The suit was dismissed as not maintainable, with the court emphasizing that the issues raised by the plaintiff should be addressed within the arbitration proceedings, as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
|
