Devinder Gupta, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed under Sections 33 and 37 (5) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short "the Act") praying that the arbitration clause contained in agreement to sell dated 6th March, 1987 be declared to be of no effect and valid for the purpose of deciding the disputes between the parties under the said agreement to sell and to order that the arbitration agreement shall cease to have any bearing with reference to the differences/disputes.

( 2 ) UNDER the agreement to sell, the petitioner agreed to purchase property being flat No. 140, First Floor, DDA Flats, East of Kailash, New Delhi for a consideration of Rs. 6,80,000. 00 , out of which a sum of Rs. 30,000. 00 was to be the earnest money. The petitioner was also to pay unearned increase and/or other charges that might be demanded by the Delhi Development Authority for grant of pernission to transfer the said flat in her favour. The petitioner was to get possession of the flat only on the payment of the full price and the sale was to be subject to the terms and conditions of lease deed granted by the Delhi Development Authority. Disputes and differences arose between the parties. The petitioner filed an application under Section 20 of the Act, which was registered as S. No. 2957/88 and was allowed on 20th July, 1990. Disputes/differences referred for adjudication are:-

"i) Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract of sale? ii) Whether it was open to the defendant to back out from the transaction and if so with what effect? iii) Whether the plaintiff has paid Rs. 2,45,000. 00 to the defendant in December, 1988 or at any other time? iv) Whether the defendant delivered possession to the plaintiff on having received the said sum of Rs. 2,45,000. 00 ? v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the agreement dated 6th March, 1987? vi) Whether her conduct disentitled her from claiming the equitable relief of specific performance?

( 3 ) WHILE allowing the petition, the Court ordered that any other dispute between the parties arising out of the agreement dated 6th March, 1987 be also adjudicated upon by the arbitrator.

( 4 ) THE petitioner has now again approached this Court by filing this petition contending that during the proceedings before the arbitrator it transpired that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to decide the question of specific performance of the contract in terms of the two decision of this Court reported as Salochna Uppal v. Surinder Sheel 1990 R. L. R. 454 and Hari Om Properties (P) Ltd v. B. Dutta 1990 R. L. R. 536.

( 5 ) NOTICE of this petition was issued to the respondent on the prayer made by the petitioner that in view of the two decisions of this Court, the arbitration clause contained in the agreement to sell may be declared to be having no effect for the. purpose of deciding the disputes between the parties. The respondent has disputed the petitioner s stand. According to the respondent, the arbitration clause is valid and disputes are capable of being referred and decided by an arbitrator. The petitioner having invoked the arbitration clause by approaching the Court and having got the disputes referred for adjudicaton by an arbitrator cannot be permitted now to question the validity thereof.

( 6 ) I have gone through the two decisions of this Court aforementioned, which hold that where the law gives jurisdiction to determine certain matters by the Court in which Court is obliged to exercise its descretion to grant or not to grant relief, the same cannot be referred for adjudication to an arbitrator.

( 7 ) THE ratio of the two decisions of this Court in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Tarapore and Company v. Cochin Shipyard Ltd. Cochin, 1984 S. C. 1072, Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Company and another, 1985 S. C. 1156 requires re-consideration. It may be only in those cases affecting civil rights of the parties, where law has

Click Here to Read the rest of this document