Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2013 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 440 - DELHI HIGH COURTSection 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The contention of the petitioners is that the works claimed by the respondent were never executed and the claims made by the respondent were beyond the scope of the allotment agreement - Held that:- The sole Arbitrator has dealt with each and every objection raised by the petitioners in their application under Section 16 of the Act and held that the Arbitrator has got the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between the partiesThough the allotment letter and allotment agreement were executed at different stage, are part and parcel of the same transaction and flat buyer agreement regulates the rights and liabilities qua the allotted flat - Both these documents form part of the sale deed - The flat buyer agreement which regulate the rights and liabilities in regard to allotment and transfer of flats, would not come to an end and arbitration clause 42 will not be wiped out on execution of sale deed. The Arbitration Clause is wide enough to cover the claims made - Clause 2(9) of the flat buyers agreement speaks of the liability of the flat buyer to compensate for the works contract tax which is one of the item. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as reasons given by the Sole Arbitrator, I find that there is no force in the petition as the petition under Section 34 Act is not maintainable against the disposal of application under Section 16 of the Act filed by the petitioners - Whatever the grievances raised by the petitioners in the present petition or in the application filed by them before the learned Sole Arbitrator - The petitioners are at liberty to raise the same after rendering of the award by the sole Arbitrator if such a situation arises - As far as present petition is concerned, the same is not maintainable and is dismissed.
|