Back
SUNITA AGARWAL
HARESH NAGJIBHAI RAMANI – Appellant
Versus
UDAY DINESHCHANDRA BHATT – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (for short ‘the Act 1996’) seeking for appointment of arbitrator in a dispute between the two sets of partners of the partnership firm “Uday Developers.”
2. There is a strong opposition on the part of the respondents to refer the dispute to the arbitrator on the ground that there are criminal complaints against the petitioners and a First Information Report has been lodged after the order dated 10.07.2022 passed by the competent magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure under Sections 406, 409 and 420 etc. of the Indian Penal Code. The contention is that criminal allegations against the petitioners would have a serious implication in the public domain as they permeate to the entire contract making the dispute non-arbitrable.
3. Noticing the context, in brief, this Court may take note of certain relevant facts.
4. The partnership firm namely Uday Developers had started its business in the year 2007 i.e. 27.04.2007 with the respondents as its partners. The firm was re-constituted on 01.09.2008 and the petitioners and few others w
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 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.
Mere allegations of fraud do not inherently preclude arbitration unless they raise complex issues requiring a full trial; straightforward financial disputes remain arbitrable under the Arbitration an....
The court reaffirmed that the existence of an arbitration agreement must be established, and disputes should generally be referred to arbitration unless clearly non-arbitrable.
Disputes involving serious fraud allegations do not preclude arbitration; issues of non-arbitrability and limitations should be resolved by the arbitral tribunal, not courts.
The court affirmed that allegations of fraud do not negate an arbitration agreement unless they are serious and complex, allowing the tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction.
The court reinforced the principle that arbitration agreements must be enforced and that jurisdictional issues regarding non-signatories should be resolved by arbitral tribunals, aligning with preced....
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
