Case Details Sushma Shivkumar Daga & Anr. vs Madhurkumar Ramkrishnaji Bajaj & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

15 December 2023

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 1854 of 2023

Result

Dismissed

Bench

Aniruddha Bose, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Citation

[2023] 15 S.C.R. 909 : 2023 INSC 1081

Issue for consideration

The trial Court referred the matter to arbitration and the said decision was upheld by the High Court. Whether the Trial Court and the High Court have rightly referred the matter to arbitration or the dispute is of such a nature that it is not liable to be referred to arbitration, as there was no arbitration clause in the Conveyance Deed dated 17.12.2019 or if there was, yet the matter in any case is such that it is not arbitrable.

Headnote

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – A civil suit was filed by the appellants-plaintiffs herein seeking declaration that the conveyance deed dated 17.12.2019 was validly terminated and various other registered development agreements dated 17.09.2007, 20.11.2007, 30.11.2007, 03.12.2007 and 27.02.2008 were null and void – Respondent-defendants filed application u/s.8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Matter was referred to arbitration – Propriety:

Held: In the instant case, there are broadly three objections of the appellants: The first objection was regarding the absence of arbitration clause in the conveyance deed and the various development agreements – The Conveyance deed dated 17.12.2019 and the five development agreements dated 17.09.2007, 20.11.2007, 30.11.2007, 03.12.2007 and 27.02.2008, all find their source in the two Tripartite agreements dated 31.03.2007 and 25.07.2008 – Both the Tripartite agreements contained the arbitration clause – The Trial Court and the High Court have rightly held that the broad language of the ‘arbitration clause’ in the two Tripartite agreements would cover the dispute raised by the appellants before the Civil Court and hence rightly referred to arbitration – The second objection was that the suit filed by the appellants is for cancellation of a document relating to immovable property i.e. land and it therefore amounts to an action in rem and hence arbitration is not the remedy – It is settled that whether it is a suit for cancellation of a deed or a declaration of rights rising from deed, it would only be an action in personam and not in rem – The third objection was regarding fraud – The plea of fraud raised by the appellants in their objection to the Section 8 application was never substantiated – Except for making a bald allegation of fraud there is nothing else – This Court has consistently held that a plea of fraud must be serious in nature in order to oust the jurisdiction of an Arbitrator – Both the trial Court and the High Court have given a correct finding on facts as well as law – No interference required.[Paras 6,18,19,20]

LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT 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 r

View Subscription Plans →