9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Roy, AOR Mr. P. Srinivasan, Adv. JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI 1 Leave granted. 2 The appeals arise from a judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 1 August 2017 in CR Nos 2819 and 2820 of 2017. Both the petitions involving the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution arose from the orders passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar allowing applications under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 "1996 Act" in two suits instituted by the first respondent, namely, Case No 64/2438/2014 and Civil Suit No 28/53/2015. 3 The appellant and the first respondent are brothers and were conducting business in the name and style of Sachdeva and Sons in partnersh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants themselves, through their officials, agents, privies and representatives from selling or alienating in any manner land having an area of 10 ½ qillas with Khasra Nos. 29/12(8-0), 11/2/1/2(1-13), 11/2/2/2 (1-17), 8/2/1(5-8), 19/1 (5-1), 21/2(5-1), 22/1(6-4), 8/1/1(1-18), 23(8-0), 9/3/2/2(3-11), 24(5-8), 20/1(0-10), 29/13(8-0), 14(2-10), 17(3-18) and 18(8-4) as per jamabandi for the year 2006- 07 situated at Village Gilwali, Chabba, Sangrana Sahib, Tarn Taran Road, Amritsar, with complete costs of the present suit, may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants." 6 A second suit, Suit No 28/53/2015, was instituted by the appellant. Besides the firs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The plaintiff may also be awarded any other relief to which he shall be found entitled to under the law, equity and justice." 7 Applications under Section 8 of the 1996 Act were moved by the first respondent seeking a reference to arbitration in both the suits. The trial court dismissed the applications by separate orders dated 27 March 2017. The first respondent challenged the orders of the trial court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court, by the impugned order dated 1 August 2017, set aside the judgment of the trial court and directed that the disputes in both the suits be referred to arbitration under Section 8 of the 1996 Act. The dispute has travelled to this Court. 8 We have heard Mr Rajiv Talwar, counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l companies, partnership firms and proprietorship under the joint ownership of the Sachdeva family. The MoU contains a description of the respective family units and their concerns. The MoU indicates that there are certain non-family shareholdings. 10 In this backdrop and since the MoU was executed exclusively between the appellant and the first respondent, the reference to arbitration under Section 8 of the trial Judge was patently in error. Neither Canara Bank nor the company are parties to the arbitration agreement. The MoU has been executed between the appellant and the first respondent. The non-family shareholdings, in any event, cannot be bound by the terms of the MoU since they are not parties to the document. 11 For the above reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
