Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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