MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Courts Must Refer Disputes to Arbitration Upon Valid Agreements: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment pronounced on November 6, 2023, the Delhi High Court underscored the primacy of arbitration agreements in civil disputes. Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.Hari Shankar, delivering the verdict in the case of Madhu Sudan Sharma & Ors vs. Omaxe Ltd, emphasized that "the mere fact that the appellants did not separately request that the dispute between the parties be referred to arbitration, would be of little consequence."

The High Court quashed the decision of the Additional District Judge (ADJ) which had decreed a suit in favor of the respondent, Omaxe Ltd, despite the appellants invoking the arbitration clause. The appellants had consistently maintained that the suit was not maintainable due to the arbitration agreement under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Justice C.Hari Shankar stated, "The learned Commercial Court was, therefore, clearly in error in holding that the Section 8 objection had been raised at a stage later than that envisaged by the provision." This observation came as the court recognized that the appellants had raised the objection at the earliest possible instance, through an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of the CPC, and subsequently in their written statement.

In a clear affirmation of the arbitration process, the court further noted, "Once the arbitration clause had been extracted, it would be too hypertechnical to hold that, for want of a separate request to refer the dispute to arbitration, there was no compliance with Section 8(1) of the 1996 Act."

The judgment also highlighted the court's minimal intervention in matters where the parties have agreed to arbitration, aligning with the broader objective of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to facilitate the resolution of disputes efficiently and expediently.

The court's decision to allow the appeal and set aside the ADJ's judgment paves the way for the dispute to be resolved through arbitration, as initially agreed upon by the parties. This ruling reaffirms the legal stance that arbitration agreements must be honored and that civil courts must refer parties to arbitration upon such valid agreements, thereby ensuring that contractual obligations are respected and upheld in the judicial process.

Representing advocates for the appellants included Mr. J. Sai Deepak and his team, while Mr. Ramesh Singh, Sr. Adv., along with Mr. Shalabh Singhal and Ms. Neha Chaturvedi, represented Omaxe Ltd. This judgment is expected to have significant implications for the enforcement of arbitration clauses in commercial contracts.

Date of Decision: 06 November 2023

MADHU SUDAN SHARMA & ORS VS OMAXE LTD     

Latest Legal News