Back
2011 (5) SCC 532
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc.
Versus
SBI Home Finance Ltd. & Ors.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5440 OF 2002
Decided on : April 15. 2011
(Paras 14 & 15)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908–Order 8 Rule 1–Written statement–Filing of reply by defendant to an application for temporary injunction/attachment before judgment/ appointment of Receiver, cannot be considered as submission of a statement on substance of dispute.
(Para 17)
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996–Section 8–Limitation–Application under Section 8 should be made at the earliest–A party who willingly participates in proceedings in suit and subjects himself to jurisdiction of Court cannot subsequently turn round and say that parties should be referred to arbitration in view of existence of arbitration agreement. (Para 19)
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996–Sections 11 and 8–Nature and scope of issues arising for consideration in application under Section 11 for appointment of arbitrators, are far narrower than those arising in application under Section 8–Where issue of arbitrability arises in context of application under Section 8 in a pending suit, all aspects of arbitrability have to be decided by Court seized of suit and cannot be left to decision of Arbitrator.
(Para 20)
Rights–Arbitrability–Disputes relating to subordinate rights in personam arising from rights in rem have always been considered to be arbitrable.
(Para 23)
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996–Section 11–Agreement to sell/agreement to mortgage does not involve any transfer of right in rem but create only a personal obligation–If specific performance is sought either in regard to an agreement to sell or an agreement to mortgage, claim for specific performance will be arbitrable.
(Para 27)
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996–Section 8–Suit for sale, foreclosure or redemption of a mortgaged property, should only be tried by a public forum and not by arbitral tribunal–Court where mortgage suit is pending, should not refer parties to arbitration–Dismissal of application under Section 8 upheld.
(Paras 28 to 30)
(2005) 8 SCC 618; (2006) 7 SCC 275; (1999) 5 SCC 688; (1999) 5 SCC 651; (1993) 2 SCC 507; (2003) 5 SCC 531–Relied on.
आपके तर्क के समर्थन में निम्नलिखित तर्क प्रस्तुत किए जा सकते हैं:
मॉर्गेज, फोरक्लोजर और बिक्री से संबंधित विवाद इन रेम अधिकारों से जुड़े होते हैं, जिनमें संपत्ति का संरक्षण और सार्वजनिक हित की रक्षा मुख्य उद्देश्य होते हैं। इसलिए, इन मामलों का निपटान न्यायालय के बिना संभव नहीं है। (!)
इन विवादों में तीसरे पक्ष की रुचि और सार्वजनिक हित की रक्षा के लिए न्यायालय का हस्तक्षेप आवश्यक है, ताकि संपत्ति का उचित मूल्यांकन और निष्पक्ष निर्णय सुनिश्चित किया जा सके। (!)
इन मामलों में, विवादित संपत्ति पर अधिकार और उसकी स्थिति का निर्धारण न्यायालय द्वारा ही किया जाना चाहिए, क्योंकि यह अधिकार इन रेम से संबंधित होते हैं और इन्हें केवल न्यायालय ही सुरक्षित कर सकता है। (!)
यदि इन विवादों को आर्बिट्रेशन के माध्यम से सुलझाया गया, तो यह सार्वजनिक हित और तीसरे पक्ष के अधिकारों का उल्लंघन हो सकता है, क्योंकि आर्बिट्रेशन प्रक्रिया इन रेम अधिकारों को पर्याप्त रूप से संरक्षित नहीं कर सकती। (!)
न्यायालय का मानना है कि ऐसी विवादास्पद परिस्थितियों में, न्यायिक प्रक्रिया का पालन करना अधिक उपयुक्त और आवश्यक है, ताकि सभी हितधारकों का उचित संरक्षण हो सके। (!)
JUDGMENT
R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J. The scope of section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act, for short) arises for consideration in this appeal by special leave.
2. Capstone Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. (second respondent herein, for short "Capstone") and Real Value Appliances Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No.3 herein, for short "RV Appliances") are the owners of flat No.9A and 9B respectively situated at "Brighton", Napien Sea Road, Mumbai. Capstone and RV Appliances had borrowed loans from SBI Home Finance Ltd., (the first respondent herein, for short "SBI") under two loan agreements dated 3.12.1994 by securing the said two flats in favour of SBI.
3. Under two leave and licence agreements dated 5.4.1996, Capstone and RV Appliances permitted the appellant to use their respective flats, for the term 1.9.1996 to 31.8.1999. Each licence agreement was signed, in addition to the licensor and licensee, by the other flat owner (that is RV Appliances in respect of agreement relating to 9A and Capstone in respect of agreement relating to 9B) and SBI as confirming parties 1 and 2.
4. On the same day (5.4.1996) a tripartite deposit agreement was entered among RV Appliances and Capstone as the first party, appellant as the second party and SBI as the third party. Under the said agreement, the appellant paid a refundable security deposit of Rs.6.5 crores to Capstone and RV Appliances (at the rate of Rs.3.25 crores for each flat). Clause (E) of the said agreement confirmed that the appellant made the said deposit and Capstone and RV Appliances received the said deposit on the basis of the terms and conditions recorded in the two leave and licence agreements and the deposit agreement; and that the three agreements together formed a single integral transaction, inseparable, co-extensive and co-terminus in character.
5. Out of the said deposit of Rs.6.5 crores, a sum of Rs.5.5 crores was directly paid to SBI on the instructions of Capstone and RV Appliances towards repayment of the loan taken by Capstone and Real Value and the balance of Rs.1 crore accounted in the manner indicated therein. As a consequence, the loan due by Capstone to SBI in regard to flat No.9A was cleared, but the loan taken by RV Appliances remained due and outstanding. Capstone however became a guarantor for repayment of the amount due by RV Appliances and flat No.9A was secured in favour of SBI and a charge was created in the shares relating to flat No.9A belonging to Capstone in favour of SBI, as security for repayment of the loan by R V Appliances.
6. We extract below the relevant portion of para 5A of the agreement :
"However, notwithstanding the repayment of the dues of Capstone Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., the share Nos.4001 to 4250 of the Society and Flat No.9A shall continue to be available to the Party of the Third Part as security of the remaining dues of Real Value Appliances Ltd., and in this connection it is agreed that upon liquidating the dues of Capstone Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., and in order to make available the said shares Nos.4001 to 4250 and Flat No.9A as security, Capstone Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. shall become a Guarantor for repayment of dues of Real Value Appliances Pvt. Ltd. The Parties of the Third Part are confirming that it has no objection to the Party of the Second Part, its employee or officer occupying the Flats and that as long as the balance of the principal amount and interest due thereon is paid by the Parties of the First Part (or as per arrangement hereafter recorded) by the Party of the Second Part to Party of the Third Part, the Parties of the Third Part shall not enforce the mortgage and will permit the Party of the Second Part, its employee or officer to occupy the said Flats."
7. Clause
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
