Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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