Back
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Masters Management Consultants (India) Private Ltd. , Represented By Its Regional Manager-South And Authorised Signatory Mr. Vishnu Prasada Rao, S/o. Mr. Bhimashankara Rao Paladugu – Appellant
Versus
Nitesh Estates Limited. , Represented By Its Managing Director, Mr. Nitesh Shetty – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The captioned writ petition is filed by the plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the order dated 05.02.2016 passed by the learned Judge on I.A.No.2 filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') wherein the learned Judge has ordered for return of plaint and the same is under challenge.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Court below.
3. The plaintiff has instituted a suit for recovery of sum of Rs.1,66,99,728/-along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The plaintiff claims that it has entered into a project management and construction management agreement with defendant No.2, the owner, and defendant No.1 who appears to be the developer. The plaintiff claims that this agreement was entered into on 30.05.2012. The plaintiff claims that in terms of clause 4.1 of the agreement, he is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,05,00,000/-plus service tax as per the agreement. The plaintiff has specifically pleaded that in terms of the agreement, he has rendered service as enumerated under the agreement and accordingly invoices are raised in terms of payment schedule under clause 4.1 of the agreement.
An agreement must contain the attributes required for an arbitration agreement, including the consensus of the parties to refer the dispute to arbitration, to be considered as an arbitration agreemen....
Disputes arising from a lease agreement containing an arbitration clause can be referred to arbitration even when a non-signatory is involved, provided the claims are within the scope of the arbitrat....
The central legal point established is that the existence of an arbitration agreement requires a document executed by both parties showing consensus ad-idem, incorporating such a clause.
The court held that disputes regarding settled amounts are not arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, unless specifically covered by the arbitration agreement.
The court ruled that it has authority to file an arbitration agreement and appoint an arbitrator, even when the designated arbitrator is unwilling to act, per the Indian Arbitration Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of written consent for arbitration, the effect of the appointment of an arbitrator, and the availability of statutory remedies under....
The court emphasized strict adherence to procedural requirements for references to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, dismissing applications that do not explicitly comply.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
