Dishant Malhotra Vs Sandeep Kumar

Delhi High Court 12 Mar 2012 CM (M) 1277 of 2011 and CM No. 19890 of 2011
Bench: Single Bench
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

CM (M) 1277 of 2011 and CM No. 19890 of 2011

Hon'ble Bench

Indermeet Kaur, J

Advocates

Gaurav Gandhi, for the Appellant; R.K. Beri, for the Respondent

Acts Referred

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 8

Judgement Text

Translate:

Indermeet Kaur, J.

1 Order impugned is dated 27.07.2011; the application filed by the defendant u/s 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 had been

dismissed. The petitioner is aggrieved by this finding. Record shows that the present suit is a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs.

40,000/; contention was that the balance amount which is due from the defendant on the bill dated 03.06.2010 has not been paid. Admittedly

there was an agreement entered into between the parties which is dated 03.06.2010. There are 16 clauses in the said agreement and the arbitration

clause is contained in para 15 which reads herein as under:-

That any dispute arising out of the aforesaid agreement shall be settled through the arbitration as per the provisions of Indian Arbitration

Reconciliation Act, 1996, the both party have the absolute power to appoint the sole arbitrator whose award shall be binding on both the parties.

2. From this arbitration clause, it is clear that any dispute arising out of the aforesaid agreement shall be settled through arbitration; both party shall

have the absolute power to appoint the sole arbitrator whose Award shall be binding on both them.

3. It is also not in dispute that this claim which has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant is a claim arising out of a bill in terms of the

aforenoted agreement. As such the contention of the defendant that the parties were governed by the arbitration clause carries force and the

impugned order dismissing the application u/s 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the premise that the original arbitration agreement

has not been filed (when admittedly arbitration agreement is the foundation of the case and is an admitted document) was clearly an illegality; the

parties were governed by this arbitration clause contained in the agreement dated 03.06.2010. All the ingredients necessary for the applicability of

the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act stood attracted. In terms of the arbitration clause, the dispute which has been arisen is accordingly

referred to the arbitration in terms of the arbitration agreement. Petition disposed of in the above terms.

From The Blog
Supreme Court: 8-Year Service Termination Cannot Be Justified
Oct
23
2025

Story

Supreme Court: 8-Year Service Termination Cannot Be Justified
Read More
Supreme Court Asks Centre to Respond on Online Gambling Ban
Oct
23
2025

Story

Supreme Court Asks Centre to Respond on Online Gambling Ban
Read More