Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Supreme Court: No Arbitration Reference Allowed in Multi-Transaction Property Dispute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 1 May 2023, Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgement, dismissed an appeal filed by a party seeking reference to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The case involved a dispute over multiple transactions related to a property, and the key question before the Court was whether the arbitration clause in the original license agreement could be extended to cover subsequent transactions.

The appellant, in this case, argued that the amended Section 8 of the Act of 1996, which came into effect in 2015, required courts to refer the parties to arbitration even if there was a doubt about the existence of an arbitration agreement. The appellant also relied on several earlier judgments, including Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation, which dealt with the implications of non-stamping or under-stamping on arbitration agreements.

However, the Supreme Court rejected the appellant's arguments, stating that the facts of the case did not support an extension of the arbitration clause to subsequent transactions. The Court noted that except for the original license agreement, none of the other agreements involved in the case contained an arbitration clause. Moreover, the Court observed that the dispute involved subsequent purchasers and allegations of fraud, which could not be resolved in any forum without reference to the tripartite agreement and its amended clause, which did not provide for arbitration.

The Court also rejected the appellant's reliance on the memos submitted by the subsequent purchasers, in which they stated that they had no objection to arbitration. The Court held that the consent of the subsequent purchasers could not infuse an arbitration clause in the tripartite agreement.

The Supreme Court held that the view taken by the lower courts, which had declined the appellant's prayer for reference to arbitration, was correct. Appeals Dismissed.

GUJARAT COMPOSITE LIMITED  vs A INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED & ORS.

           

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/1-May-2023-GUJARAT-COMPOSITE-LIMITED-Vs-A-Infrastructure.pdf"]

Latest Legal News