Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V.SRISHANANDA
Ashok S. Dhariwal, S/o. Suganchand Dhariwal – Appellant
Versus
Mahaveer K. Ranka, S/o. Late Kaluram Ranka – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
1. The present Civil Revision Petition is a classic example of how an arbitration proceedings can be delayed even at the very inception stage in utter disregard to the laudable object of early resolution of civil dispute and Alternate Dispute Resolution System and defeating the very object of the enactment of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is often said that resolution of disputes by arbitration in India is full of brakes and no engine. Present case is best example for the said saying.
2. Present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the appellant in M.A No.36 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru,(CCH- 25) challenging the validity of the said judgment dated 24.11.2018 dismissing the Appeal filed by him challenging the order passed by the arbitrator, whereby the arbitrator recorded a finding that the dispute between the parties is not an arbitral dispute.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition are as under:
It is alleged that petitioner, respondent Nos.1 to 4 along with other persons constituted a partnership firm in the name and style ‘M/
The court held that allegations of fraud and misappropriation of funds, when inter se and with no public implications, are arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court affirmed that objections regarding non-arbitrability of disputes are not to be considered at the pre-referral stage under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court established that serious allegations of criminality do not automatically render partnership disputes non-arbitrable unless they permeate the entire arbitration agreement.
The mere existence of an arbitration clause does not automatically oust the jurisdiction of civil courts unless explicitly stated in law.
The grounds of fraud and forgery alleged in the plaint do not make out any case which would prevent the matter from being decided by an Arbitral Tribunal. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court acte....
The scope of enquiry under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is restricted to the examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement. The burden lies on the party resis....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that serious allegations of fraud and the pending criminal case against a party may make it improper to refer disputes to arbitration, leading to t....
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
