SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Del) 415

Delhi High Court
MARKANDEYA KATJU,SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
U. C. Aggarwal - Appellant
Versus
Container Corpn. - Respondent
W. P. (C) No. 1777-78 of 2006
Decided On : 03/03/2006

Advocates:
A. N. Tiwari, for Appellant.
A. N. Tiwari, for Appellant.

The burden to prove the existence of an arbitration agreement lies with the petitioner, and in the absence of evidence from either party, the suit must fail.

Headnote:

arbitration agreement - dismissal of petition - The court held that the burden to prove the existence of an arbitration agreement lies with the petitioner, and when neither party provides evidence, the suit must fail.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a writ appeal against the judgment of the ADJ, claiming the existence of an arbitration agreement. The respondent denied the existence of such an agreement.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the petition, stating that the burden to prove the arbitration agreement lay with the petitioner, and in the absence of evidence from either party, the suit must fail.

Issues: Existence of arbitration agreement, burden of proof

Ratio Decidendi: The burden to prove the existence of an arbitration agreement lies with the petitioner, and in the absence of evidence from either party, the suit must fail.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed by the court.

Judgement

MARKANDEYA KATJU, C.J. :- This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgement of the ADJ dated 23-8-2005. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. The facts have been set out in the judgement of the learned single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same.

3. It has been stated in para 12 of the impugned order that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties and hence the matter cannot be referred to the arbitrator. It was also stated that the claim was time barred.

4. We asked learned counsel for the petitioner to tell us whether the petitioner has produced any arbitration agreement he stated that he has not. He contended that the respondent should be directed to produce the arbitration agreement. The respondent denied that there is any arbitration agreement. A party cannot be compelled to prove the negative. When the respondent is denying that there was any arbitration agreement how can we direct him to produce it?

5. The burden to prove is on the petitioner and if he says that there is an arbitration agreement, it is for him to prove that. It is well settled that when neither the plaintiff nor the defendant lead evidence, the suit must fail, vide FCI v. M/s. Laxmi Cattle Feed Industries, JT 2006 (2) SC 552 : (AIR 2006 SC 1452).

6. For the reasons given above, the petition is dismissed.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top