9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Non-inclusion of a necessary party (Ambikabai) in the arbitration application. 2. Piecemeal reference and splitting up of the cause of action. 3. Dispute not covered by the arbitration clause. 4. Allegations of fraud against the appellant. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Non-inclusion of a Necessary Party (Ambikabai) The appellant argued that Ambikabai, who had a share in the forest, was not a party to the application under Section 20, thus the entire dispute could not be referred to arbitration. The High Court held that Ambikabai's interest was sufficiently represented by Anant, her nephew. The Supreme Court concurred, stating that even if Anant could not represent Ambikabai's interest, the dispute between the appellant and the respondents should still be referred to arbitration. The Court emphasized that the share of Ambikabai was not in dispute, and the arbitrator could proceed with the accounts and award, excluding her undisputed share. Therefore, the appellant's contention on this point failed. Issue 2: Piecemeal Reference and Splitting Up of the Cause of Action The appellant contended that the respondents did not include the agreement of May 5, 1952, in their application, leading to a piecemeal reference. The Court noted that the agreement of May 1952 was merely confirmatory of the main agreement of October 22, 1948, and would necessarily be considered by the arbitrator. The Court agreed with the trial court's view that pleadings in muffasil courts should not be strictly construed and held that the reference was not piecemeal. Thus, the appellant's contention on this score also failed. Issue 3: Dispute Not Covered by the Arbitration Clause The appellant argued that the dispute was not covered by the arbitration clause. The Court found the arbitration clause to be of very wide import, covering disputes arising out of the agreements of October 22, 1948, May 5, 1952, and February 27, 1953, as well as disputes related to jungle cutting or export. The Court rejected the appellant's reliance on the opening words of clause 6 of the February 1953 agreement, which referenced a letter dated February 7, 1953, stating that these words did not limit the arbitration clause's wide scope. Therefore, the appellant's contention under this head failed. Issue 4: Allegations of Fraud Against the Appellant The appellant contended that serious allegations of fraud had been made against him, which should prevent the matter from being referred to arbitration. The Court acknowledged that serious allegations of fraud could be a sufficient cause for not referring a dispute to arbitration. However, it emphasized that not every allegation of dishonesty in accounts would suffice. The Court examined the allegations in this case, which included incomplete accounts, exaggerated debit items, and apprehensions of potential misappropriation, and concluded that these did not amount to serious allegations of fraud. Therefore, the Court found no sufficient cause to refuse the reference to arbitration. The appellant's contention on this point also failed. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that none of the appellant's contentions provided sufficient cause to refuse the reference to arbitration. The arbitration agreement was ordered to be filed in court, and the necessary proceedings were directed to follow. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
