2015 (1) TMI 902

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent entered into between the parties and the petitioner having already taken recourse to the remedy of arbitration, the writ petition is not maintainable. - Decided against Assessee.
Rajendra Menon and Alok Verma, JJ. Shri Vipul Sharma, Counsel, for the Petitioner. Shri K.S. Wadhwa, Additional Advocate General, Ganesh Purohit with Abhishek Oswal and Sushrut Dharmadhikari, Counsels, for the Respondent. ORDER Shri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Shri K.S. Wadhwa, learned Additional Advocate General for Respondent No. 1. 3. Shri Ganesh Purohit, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Abhishek Oswal, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2. 4. Shri Sushrut Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 8. Initially, the petitioner protested and came out with a case that the agreement does not provide for payment of Service Tax and, therefore, they are not liable to pay the Service Tax. Thereafter, the petitioner raised a dispute and vide their communication Annexure R1, dated 17-7-2013 sought for appointment of an Arbitrator in pursuance to Clause 26(A) of the agreement for resolution of dispute. 9. It seems that in pursuance to the claim made by the petitioner, Respondent No. 5 has been appointed as an Arbitrator, now the Arbitrator is seized of the matter and in the meanwhile, petitioner has approached this Court in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution invoking a writ jurisdiction and seek interference into t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... raised and tried to emphasize that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is maintainable, we are of the considered view that as the dispute in question is covered by an arbitration clause i.e. Clause 26(A) and as the petitioner has already invoked the clause and the matter is sub judice before the Arbitrator and the records indicate that the Arbitrator has issued notices to the parties concerned to appear before him for adjudication of the dispute, we see no reason to interfere into the matter. 13. We may point out that even though Shri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel tried to argue on merit and make out a case but in view of the preliminary objection raised, we see no reason to go into these questions in this pe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X