Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2002 (4) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2002 (4) TMI 977 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the civil suit before the court in light of the arbitration agreement.
2. Validity of the arbitration agreement in the lease deed.
3. Interpretation and enforcement of the arbitration agreement.

Analysis:
1. The civil revision challenged the trial court's order referring the matter to arbitration based on an arbitration agreement in the lease deed. The petitioner sought the court's judgment without filing a replication to the defendant's written statement. The court considered the objection of the defendant regarding the existence of an arbitration agreement and ruled in favor of arbitration. The petitioner contended that the defendant did not invoke Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for arbitration. However, the court held that the defendant's actions were sufficient to bring the arbitration agreement to the court's attention, emphasizing the Act's objective.

2. The petitioner argued that the lease deed was unstamped and unregistered, making the arbitration agreement invalid. Additionally, they claimed that the arbitration agreement lapsed after the three-year lease period. The court dismissed these arguments, stating that even if the lease was invalid, the arbitration agreement could still be considered for its intended purpose. The court highlighted the importance of the existence of an arbitration agreement for resolving disputes.

3. The arbitration agreement in the lease deed mandated any disputes to be resolved through arbitration with a specified arbitrator. The court emphasized that the parties had agreed to resolve any lease-related disputes through arbitration, making it impermissible for the petitioner to avoid invoking the arbitration agreement. The court upheld the existence of the arbitration agreement but modified the order to refer the remaining dispute to the named arbitrator for resolution within a specified timeframe. The judgment concluded by directing the immediate communication of the order to the arbitrator for further proceedings.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates