Petitioner filed writ petition challenging a trial court order referring dispute to sole arbitrator and disposing suit. Court held writ malenable as order is appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(a) CPC.
Writ petition summarily dismissed for non-maintainability since alternative remedy of appeal exists.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 6276 OF 2007
Milind Panditrao Pujari .... Petitioner
versus
Bharatiya Shiksha Abhiyan & ors...... Respondent.
Shri J.S.Deo for the petitioner
Shri Dilip Bodake for respondent no.1.
Shri A.V.Anturkar i/b. S.B.Deshmukh for respondent
no.2.
Ms. Anu Singh for respondent no.6.
CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED; 10TH OCTOBER, 2007
P.C.;
1. The present petitioner is the original plaintiff
who instituted a suit claiming various reliefs against
the defendants. One of the defendants moved an
application under section 8 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act 1996, contending that deed of
settlement dated 21-10-2003, memorandum of
understanding dated 12-4-2005 and deed of revocation
dated 19-5-2005 provide for resolution of the dispute
by the sole arbitrator and hence a prayer was made for
referring the dispute to the sole arbitrator. Relying
upon clause 11(o) of the deed of settlement and a
clause in the memorandum of understanding dated
12-4-2005 which provides thus:
"Any dispute under this agreement is subject
to efforts of Reconciliation by Shri Madan
Divan. He shall give his decision within 45
days of receipt of complete representation
from concerned parties. The jurisdiction of
this agreement is Pune city."
the trial court has referred the dispute to the sole
arbitrator and has disposed of the suit. Aggrieved by
the order passed under section 8 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act and the judgment disposing of the
suit, petitioner has filed this writ petition. The
learned counsel for the respondent has raised a
preliminary objection about the maintainability of the
writ petition by contending that the impugned order is
an appealable order and thus no indulgence be shown by
entertaining the writ petition. The learned counsel
for the petitioner has himself submitted that the
order of making a reference to sole arbitrator is in
the nature of return of plaint under Order 7 Rule 10.
If this be so, on the own showing of the petitioner,
the order is appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(a) of
CPC. In this view of the matter writ petition is
summarily dismissed as there exist an alternative
efficacious remedy in the form of appeal.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition maintaining a challenge to an arbitrator referral order is maintainable when an appeal lies under Order 43 Rule 1(a) of the CPC?
Whether an order referring a dispute to a sole arbitrator and disposing of suit in light of settlement deed is appealable?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Milind Panditrao Pujari
Bharatiya Shiksha Abhiyan
A.P. Deshpande
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court