Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 2084 - HC - Indian LawsSuit for recovery - Whether the Deed of Cancellation dated April 20, 2013 between the parties herein contains an arbitration clause? HELD THAT:- It is an admitted position that the Deed of Cancellation did not have any arbitration clause. The plea of appellant that the Deed of Cancellation did not expressly / explicitly obliterate the arbitration clause from the Deed of Cancellation, is not impressing for two reasons; (i) the intention of the parties was to cancel the MoU; (ii) when the parties have expressly incorporated an arbitration clause in the MoU and having not done that in the Deed of Cancellation, the necessary implication is that they have decided not to incorporate the same. The MoU stands superseded by the Deed of Cancellation. A fresh agreement has been entered without arbitration clause. The reliance placed by the respondent on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Young Achievers [2012 (7) TMI 1157 - DELHI HIGH COURT], the Court has held that the learned single Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that both the agreements dated 1.4.2007 and 1.4.2010 have been superseded/novated by the Exit Paper, and in view of Exit Paper being a fresh agreement with no arbitration clause for adjudication of disputes, the application of the appellant was rightly rejected. It is also found that as noted by the learned Single Judge, even the judgment of the Division Bench in Young Achievers [2012 (7) TMI 1157 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has been upheld by the Supreme Court [2013 (9) TMI 137 - SUPREME COURT], wherein the Supreme Court in paras 7 and 8 has held parties have entered into a fresh contract contained in the Exit paper which does not even indicate any disputes arising under the original contract or about the settlement thereof, it is nothing but a pure and simple novation of the original contract by mutual consent. Above being the factual and legal position, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. The appeal is dismissed.
|