2013 (4) TMI 474 - HC - Companies Law

Review U/s 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC - Appointment U/s 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Postpone the present application till the time final orders are passed in a similar case M/s. Mapletree Property Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - Held that - The Court in the M/s. Mapletree Property Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd did not decide the matter on merits as regards the inter-se claim between the purchaser and M/s Today Homes Property & Infrastructure Pvt - Ltd. Therefore, the said order has no binding effect to the said precedent in the matter. The argument of the learned Senior counsel for the plaintiffs is that the said case which is now pending in the Supreme Court has no bearing whatsoever on the instant case as on merits it is not even connected to the matter in hand which is a simple case of recovery of the amount along with interest. As the plaintiffs are not seeking any prayer for specific performance of the agreement in question, thus, the findings given by this Court in paragraph 34 be modified and the matter be heard on merits. I agree with the learned Senior counsel for the plaintiffs and modify the order dated 23rd January, 2012 to the effect that the proceedings in the present case cannot be postponed in view of the reasons mentioned above, thus the findings arrived at paragraph 34 of the order are recalled and reviewed. The application filed by the defendant under Section 8 of the Act is now to be decided as per its own merits - The review application is accordingly disposed of.

Summary

Issues involved: Review application under Section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC for review of the order dated 23rd January, 2012 passed by the Court.

Analysis:
1. The plaintiffs filed a suit under Order XXXVII CPC seeking a money decree along with interest. The defendant applied for arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The plaintiffs argued that since they were not pressing for specific performance due to an agreement containing arbitration, there was no need for arbitration. They claimed entitlement to a decree under Order XXXVII CPC due to the defendant's lack of defense despite receiving the amount in question.

2. Both parties had made submissions on the Section 8 application earlier, leading to an order being passed on 23rd January, 2012. The order was kept pending due to another related case pending in the Supreme Court, as mentioned in paragraph 34 of the order. The plaintiffs challenged this order through an appeal, which was later withdrawn with liberty to file a review application before the Single Judge.

3. During the review, the plaintiffs argued that the previous order did not consider crucial facts, such as a previous judgment passed by consent and the lack of connection between that case and the present matter. They also contended that the defendant's Section 8 application lacked details of the disputes requiring arbitration. The plaintiffs emphasized that their case was straightforward for recovery of the amount with no specific performance claim.

4. The Court, after considering the arguments, agreed with the plaintiffs. It found that the previous order's reliance on the pending Supreme Court case was misplaced as it was unrelated to the current matter. The Court modified the earlier order, recalling the findings in paragraph 34, and directed the defendant's Section 8 application to be decided on its own merits. The review application was disposed of accordingly.

5. Finally, the Court listed the defendant's application under Section 8 of the Act along with the suit for further proceedings on a specified date, bringing this phase of the legal process to a conclusion.