9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be necessary. The petitioner which itself is a limited company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Act has filed this petition through its managing director and constituted attorney in furtherance of the resolution of the board of directors of the petitioner-company dated 28-2-1997. A lease agreement dated 14-5-1992, was entered into between the petitioner as lessor and the respondent-company as lessee. Under the terms of the said lease, the list of equipment granted in favour of the lessee in relation to the equipment, machinery etc. was described in the schedule of agreement. The period of lease being 48 months at the rate of Rs. 1,94,067 per quarter continuously for 12 quarters payable in advance at Delhi commencing from 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the lease agreement dated 14-5-1992, to contend that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement itself and as such the winding up petition is not maintainable as parties had agreed to refer their disputes to arbitration. Clause 10.8 of the agreement reads as under : " 1. The respondent submits that as per clause 10.8 of the lease agreement dated May 14, 1992, it has been expressly agreed upon by and between the parties : Any dispute or difference arising out of or in relation to, or under this agreement shall be referred to the arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Act, 1940. The seat of arbitration proceedings shall be in New Delhi ." 4. No doubt the parties have entered into an arbitration agreement to refer their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the parties to the agreement which requires reference to the arbitrator and it is not sufficient for the applicant to say that the court should refer the matter to the arbitration because there is a clause in the agreement for making reference to the arbitrator." (p. 683) 5. Secondly, the learned counsel for the respondent-company relied upon clause 10.9 of the agreement to contend that this Court had no jurisdiction. As per this clause the jurisdiction is vested in the civil courts in Delhi to the exclusion of other Courts. This contention again is without any merit. The parties can elect the Court by mutual agreement only amongst the Courts which otherwise have jurisdiction to entertain and decide a particular proceeding. It is a sett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the agreement would expire by efflux of time. That as agreed upon by and between the parties, the total value of the assets was Rs. 16,40,000 (rupees sixteen lakhs and forty thousand only) which was the agreed purchase price by and between the parties in respect of the aforesaid transaction. It is pertinent to mention here that out of the aforesaid purchase price of Rs. 16,40,000 (rupees sixteen lakhs and forty thousand only) the petitioner-company financed an amount of only Rs. 14,65,000 (rupees fourteen lakhs sixty-five thousand only) which is a default on the part of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the short financing of the agreed purchase price of Rs. 16,40,000 (rupees sixteen lakhs and forty thousand only) goes to the v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our numerous telephone calls, we were not paid Rs. 1,75,000 which are still recoverable from you as per our books of account, neither were we provided with any relevant details in this regard. Kindly revert back on the matter with details of deduction, for needful action at our end." The statement of ledger account showing the encashment of the cheques up to 31-3-1996, was also enclosed to this letter (copy thereof annexure R-7). 8. It is strange enough that the petitioner-company did not react to annexures R-6 and R-7 and no reference was made to this letter in the statutory notice served upon the respondent-company on 14-5-1997. It must be noticed that no rejoinder was filed on behalf of the petitioner-company to the written state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing. List on October 29, 1998. No further time for the said purpose would be granted." After a few dates on 26-11-1998, it was confirmed that the stand of the respondent-company was correct. The order dated 26-11-1998, reads as under : "Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-company submits that except one cheque there is no photocopy or copy of the cheques which are alleged to have been dishonoured, available with the petitioner-company. List this matter for hearing on December 3, 1998." From the above orders of the Court it is clear that there is a bona fide and genuine dispute raised by the respondent-company in relation to stoppage of payment of one cheque for Rs. 1,94,067 while all other payments have been made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
