Back
High Court Of Delhi
TIKKAN LAL SEWA RAM - Appellant
Versus
SETH JIWAN DASS DES RAJ - Respondent
Civil 334 of 1979
Decided On : 05/15/1980
Arbitration Agreement - Validity of Arbitration Agreement - The court upheld the validity of the arbitration agreement based on the terms mentioned on the 'beejhaks' and the appointment of arbitrators by the Association, in line with the decision in P. C. Agarwal v. K. N. Khosla.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased cloth on credit basis from the respondent, with the 'beejhaks' mentioning an arbitration agreement. The dispute arose when the arbitrators appointed by the Association rendered their award.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a valid arbitration agreement between the parties, and the appointment of arbitrators by the Association was in accordance with the agreement. The court relied on a previous decision to support its finding.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the arbitration agreement and the reference to the arbitrators appointed by the Association.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision in P. C. Agarwal v. K. N. Khosla to conclude that the arbitration clause in the 'beejhaks' contained consent for reference to the arbitrators as provided by the bye laws of the Association, and a fresh agreement was not necessary.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Addl. District Judge, Delhi, dismissing the petitioner application under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act.
( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1i was, a member of Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association. Petitioner used to purchase cloth from him on credit basis against the "beejhaks" (bills) at the time of each purchase. One of the terms mentioned on the "beejhaks" was "decision on the mutual disputes would be made by Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association or through Judge or Tribunals established by them (ie. the Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association) as Arbitrators, which would be binding". The dispute having arisen, the Arbitrators were appointed by the Association, who rendered their award. The petitioner contended that there was no valid arbitration agreement and no agreement to refer the dispute to Arbitrators.
( 3 ) BEFORE the learned Additional District Judge, the petitioner conceded that he had received the "beejhaks" and there was a valid agreement of Arbitration between the parties. The only contention raised, was that there was no agreement of reference to the Arbitrators appointed by the Association. This question is concluded by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in P. C. Agarwal v. K. N. Khosla, (A. 1. R. 1975 Delhi 54 ). In that case, the contract note contained an arbitration clause, more or less of the same purport as "beejhaks" in the present case. The Division Bench held that the clause contained also a consent for reference to the Arbitrators as provided by the bye laws of Delhi Stock Exchange Association. The Court held that a fresh agreement was not necessary. The learned Addl. Judge, was right in relying on the decision of this court. No error of jurisdiction is disclosed in the impugned order.
( 4 ) REVISION petition is dismissed with costs.
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
