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

2007 Supreme(Mad) 4107

A.KULASEKARAN
M. K. Madhivadanan – Appellant
Versus
R. Samarasam – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Srinath Sridevan, Advocate. For the Respondent:
K. Sakthivel, Advocate.

Judgment :-

The defendant in O.S. No. 4083 of 2005 on the file of XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is the revision petitioner. The said suit was filed by the respondent against the petitioner herein for recovery of sum of Rs.84,800/- together with interest. Pending suit, the petitioner herein has filed I.A. No. 23828 of 2005 in O.S. No. 4083 of 2005 under Section 8 (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to refer the parties to arbitration and to dismiss the suit. The said application was dismissed by the court below on 18.04.2006, hence, the present revision petition has been filed.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the court below failed to note that under Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the suit itself is barred and it ought to have referred the dispute to arbitration; that the court below went wrong in holding that the present dispute is with regard to money and it failed to see that the alleged consideration has come in pursuance of the agreement where arbitration clause is provided; that when any dispute /misunderstanding subsequently arise between the parties, the same should have been tr










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top