9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether Roshan Lal, defendant No. 2, was the karta of the joint Hindu family and hence the karta of the joint family business carried on in the name of Messrs Gaddarmal Hira Lal, defendant No. 1? 2. Whether Messrs. Gaddarmal Hira Lal had entered into the transactions which are now to be referred to arbitration in accordance with the byelaws of the Agra Merchants' Chambers, Ltd. Agra? 3. Whether the agreement, if any, amounts to an arbitration agreement? Detailed Analysis: 1. Karta of the Joint Hindu Family: The court examined whether Roshan Lal was the karta (manager) of the joint Hindu family business carried on in the name of Messrs Gaddarmal Hira Lal. Roshan Lal contested that he was not the karta, asserting his father Hira Lal held that position. However, the court found that Roshan Lal acted as the karta, as evidenced by his actions and a vakalatnama where he signed as the karta. The court concluded that despite Hira Lal being alive, Roshan Lal could act as the karta due to his father's old age. Thus, the transactions undertaken by Roshan Lal were binding on the defendant-firm. 2. Transactions Entered by Messrs. Gaddarmal Hira Lal: The court evaluated whether Messrs. Gaddarmal Hira Lal had entered into the transactions to be referred to arbitration under the byelaws of the Agra Merchants' Chamber. The plaintiff's case was that the defendants entered into forward transactions by retaining or signing contract forms, which included a clause for compulsory arbitration. The court found that the defendants had a prior agreement with the plaintiff firm, where non-return of contract forms would signify acceptance of transactions. This mode of acceptance had been acted upon in previous transactions. The court held that the defendants' conduct in not returning the contract forms amounted to acceptance of the proposal, thereby entering into the transactions. 3. Arbitration Agreement: The court examined whether the agreement between the parties amounted to an arbitration agreement. Section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act defines an arbitration agreement as a written agreement to submit present or future differences to arbitration. The court noted that the initial agreement was oral, but the subsequent non-return of contract forms, which contained a clause for compulsory arbitration, amounted to a written agreement. The court referenced previous cases to support the view that implied acceptance through conduct (non-return of forms) could constitute a valid arbitration agreement. Thus, the court concluded that the contract forms, even though not signed, amounted to an arbitration agreement as they contained a clause for compulsory arbitration. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision to refer the disputes relating to the 'Laha' transactions to arbitration under the byelaws of the Agra Merchants' Chamber. The court found that Roshan Lal acted as the karta of the joint Hindu family business, the defendants had entered into the transactions, and the non-return of contract forms constituted an arbitration agreement. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the stay order was vacated.
|
