TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the matter. Appeal dismissed. - ANIRUDDHA BOSE And SUDHANSHU DHULIA , JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Devansh Mohta, Adv. Mr. Shirish K. Deshpande, AOR Ms. Rucha Pravin Mundlik, Adv. Ms. Harsimran Kaur Rai, Adv. Mr. Gaurangi Patil, Adv. Mr. Mohit Gautam, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Sharma, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Tishampati Sen, AOR Ms. Riddhi Sancheti, Adv. Mr. Anurag Anand, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Kaushal, Adv. Mr. Mukul Kulhari, Adv. JUDGMENT SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. 1. The appellants before this Court were the plaintiffs in a civil suit, filed in the year 2021, seeking declaration that the Conveyance Deed dated 17.12.2019 to be declared null and void, and that the registered Development Agreements dated 17.09.2007, 20.11.2007, 30.11.2007, 03.12.2007 and 27.02.2008 stand validly terminated. The respondents/defendants moved an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Arbitration Act ) for referring the matter to arbitration by relying upon the arbitral clause in the two agreements dated 31.03.2007 and 25.07.2008. It was contended that the aforesaid agreements formed the basis o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Deed of Conveyance dated 17.12.2019 be declared null and void, and that the Development Agreements entered into pursuant to the two Tripartite Agreements be declared validly terminated. 5. The Conveyance Deed dated 17.12.2019 sought to be declared void and the five Development Agreements dated 17.09.2007, 20.11.2007, 30.11.2007, 03.12.2007 and 27.02.2008 sought to be declared as validly terminated by the appellants, all find their source in the two Tripartite Agreements dated 31.03.2007 and 25.07.2008. 6. The first prerequisite for an application under Section 8, of an arbitration agreement being there in the 2007 and 2008 Tripartite agreements cannot be denied, as all the other Development Agreements find their source in the aforesaid two Tripartite Agreements. The Trial Court and the High Court have rightly held that the broad language of the arbitration clause in the two Tripartite Agreements dated 31.03.2007 and 25.07.2008 would cover the dispute raised by the appellants before the Civil Court, and hence the case has been rightly referred for arbitration. 7. The role of a Court is now in any case, extremely limited in arbitration matters. The underlying principles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : 33. It is in this context, the Commission has recommended amendments to Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The scope of the judicial intervention is only restricted to situations where the court/judicial authority finds that the arbitration agreement does not exist or is null and void. Insofar as the nature of intervention is concerned, it is recommended that in the event the court/judicial authority is prima facie satisfied against the argument challenging the arbitration agreement, it shall appoint the arbitrator and/or refer the parties to arbitration, as the case may be. The amendment envisages that the judicial authority shall not refer the parties to arbitration only if it finds that there does not exist an arbitration agreement or that it is null and void. If the judicial authority is of the opinion that prima facie the arbitration agreement exists, then it shall refer the dispute to arbitration, and leave the existence of the arbitration agreement to be finally determined by the Arbitral Tribunal. However, if the judicial authority concludes that the agreement does not exist, then the conclusion will be final and not prima facie. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have equity in the proportion of 90:10. 10. It is true that in Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Limited and Others, (2011) 5 SCC 532 this Court had set apart cases where the dispute was totally nonarbitrable, such as matrimonial disputes, guardianship dispute, or even we may add disputes relating to consumers, which are governed by an entirely different Parliamentary legislation known as Consumer Protection Act, 2019: 35. The Arbitral Tribunals are private fora chosen voluntarily by the parties to the dispute, to adjudicate their disputes in place of courts and tribunals which are public fora constituted under the laws of the country. Every civil or commercial dispute, either contractual or noncontractual, which can be decided by a court, is in principle capable of being adjudicated and resolved by arbitration unless the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunals is excluded either expressly or by necessary implication. Adjudication of certain categories of proceedings are reserved by the legislature exclusively for public fora as a matter of public policy. Certain other categories of cases, though not expressly reserved for adjudication by public fora (cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Arbitration Act reads as under: 16. Competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction. (1) The arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including ruling on any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, and for that purpose, (a) an arbitration clause which forms part of a contract shall be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract; and (b) a decision by the arbitral tribunal that the contract is null and void shall not entail ipso jure the invalidity of the arbitration clause. (2) A plea that the arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction shall be raised not later than the submission of the statement of defence; however, a party shall not be precluded from raising such a plea merely because that he has appointed, or participated in the appointment of, an arbitrator. (3) A plea that the arbitral tribunal is exceeding the scope of its authority shall be raised as soon as the matter alleged to be beyond the scope of its authority is raised during the arbitral proceedings. (4) The arbitral tribunal may, in either of the cases referred to in sub-section (2) or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. Appointment of an arbitrator may be refused if the arbitration agreement is not in writing, or the disputes are beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement. Article V(1)(a) of the New York Convention states that recognition and enforcement of an award may be refused if the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of the country where the award was made . 7.12. The legislative intent underlying the 1996 Act is party autonomy and minimal judicial intervention in the arbitral process. Under this regime, once the arbitrator is appointed, or the tribunal is constituted, all issues and objections are to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal. 7.13. In view of the provisions of Section 16, and the legislative policy to restrict judicial intervention at the pre-reference stage, the issue of limitation would require to be decided by the arbitrator. Sub-section (1) of Section 16 provides that the Arbitral Tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. Section 16 is as an inclusive provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a. Elaborate analysis on this aspect has been done by this Court in the case of Deccan Paper Mills v. Regency Mahavir Properties, (2021) 4 SCC 786, therein this court after referring to all the relevant precedents and the case laws has held that whether it is a suit for cancellation of a deed or a declaration of rights rising from the deed, it would only be an action in personam and not in rem. The decision of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Aliens Developers (P) Ltd. v. Janardhan Reddy, 2015 SCC Online Hyd 370, was held to be wrong wherein it was held that a suit under Section 31 of Specific Relief Act amounts to an action in rem and this adjudicatory function can only be done by the Competent Civil Court and the powers cannot be exercised by an Arbitrator. The basic foundation of the Court for holding that a Section 31 suit for cancellation of a document amounts to an action in rem was held to be wrong. The entire scope and ambit of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was considered and in Deccan Paper Mills (supra), the anomalies in law for holding such to be an action in rem were discussed and it was held that a relief sought under the Specific Relief Act is nothin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
