Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • S 7 and 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • S 7 and 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act

    Ananthesh Bhakta v. Nayana S. Bhakta

    ORDER

    It appears by the impugned order, matter is referred to arbitration to settle the dispute as against which, this petition is by the tenants contending that it should have been tried as a suit and shout not have been referred to arbitration and all the persons are not parties to the arbitration agreement.

    The submission of the respondent's counsel is, parties are none other than the legal representatives of the original parties and more over there is change/reconstitution of the partnership on the death of a member in the family.

    Petitioner's counsel tried to rely on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Atul Singh v. Sunil Kumar Singh-(2008) 2 SCC 602 to contend that as per S 7 and 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act there is necessity of existence of arbitration agreement to which party against whom arbitration reference sought was a party. According to the petitioner's counsel, defendants 1 to 4 are not parties to the arbitration agreement. He has also relied upon the case of Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd v. Jayesh H. Pandya-(2003) 5 SCC 531 wherein referring to S.8 of the Act, it is observed all persons should be parties to the arbitration agreement.

    It is seen, it is a family partnership and there is also an arbitration agreement. The property in occupation of the partnership also belongs to the family members which of course is shown to be sold or in respect of which an agreement is entered into by an individual with the, partnership. Be that as it may, when the partnership consists of all the family members, on the death of one or the other, there was reconstitute on of the partnership firm. In that view of the, matter, question of somebody being not a party at the relevant point of time of filing the suit does not make a difference when there is an arbitration clause provided. If one or the other person is not a party nonetheless their legal representatives are already on record. The order passed by the trial court cannot be faulted. However, parties can press of early trial.

    With the above observation, petition is disposed of.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Ananthesh Bhakta v. Nayana S. Bhakta
    (Jul 8, 2014)