Dismissed

M/s Sharvika Properties, Rep.by its Managing partner B.Gopi, v. K.N.Sampath

Madras HC17 Aug 2023Arb O.P(COM.DIV.)/229/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as withdrawn. The court noted the inability to bind a second respondent who was not a party to the underlying sale agreement.

What did the court decide?

Petition and application dismissed as withdrawn; liberty granted for civil suit applications including perjury claims.

M/s Sharvika Properties, Rep.by its Managing partner B.Gopi, Vs… — Arbitration | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Arb. O.P. (Com. Div.) No.229 of 2023

¶2

Arb. O.P. (Com. Div.) No.229 of 2023 and O.A. No.324 of 2023

¶3

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶4

This petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration

¶5

and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator.

¶6

Admittedly, the written sale agreement is only between the petitioner and the 1^st respondent. The 2^nd respondent is admittedly not a party to the sale agreement. The written sale agreement entered into between the petitioner and the 1^st respondent contains an arbitration clause. However, the petitioner in the petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before this Court would contend that the said arbitration clause is binding on the 2^nd respondent also. No documentary evidence has been placed before this Court by the petitioner to prove that the arbitration clause found in the sale agreement entered into between the petitioner and the 1^st respondent is also binding on the 2^nd respondent.

¶7

The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent would submit that

¶8

there was no agreement whatsoever whether oral or in the written form

¶9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶10

1/3

¶11

Arb. O.P. (Com. Div.) No.229 of 2023

¶12

with the petitioner or the 1^st respondent for the sale of the subject property. The said statement is recorded.

¶13

When this Court had pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the arbitration clause found in the sale agreement will not bind the 2^nd respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission of this Court to withdraw this petition as well as the application. But however sought liberty for the petitioner to approach the Civil Court and file appropriate applications in the said Civil Suit as and when filed including the application for perjury, alleged to have been committed by the 2^nd respondent, which is categorically disputed by the 2^nd respondent, as seen from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. Accordingly, this petition as well as the application are both dismissed as withdrawn. However, liberty as prayed for is granted to the petitioner and liberty is also granted to the respondent to raise whatever objections they have with regard to the proposed suit as well as the proposed applications to be filed by the petitioner.

¶14

17.08.2023

¶15

vsi2

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

2/3

¶18

Arb. O.P. (Com. Div.) No.229 of 2023

¶19

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶20

vsi2

¶21

Arb. O.P. (Com. Div.) No.229 of 2023 and O.A. No.324 of 2023

¶22

17.08.2023

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

3/3

M/s Sharvika Properties, Rep.by its Managing partner B.Gopi, v. K.N.Sampath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Sharvika Properties, Rep.by its Managing partner B.Gopi, v. K.N.Sampath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Sridharan Vs v.M.Pazhani

M/s Anand Granites Exports Private Limited, Vs Mr.Prabhudayal Agrawal

K.Kandasamy Vs R.Sulochana

Va Tech Wabag Limited, Rep.by its Authorised Signatory, Mr.Meenakshi Sundaram Vs M/s Sunshine Sheet Piling Projects India

Mr.J.v.Venkata Rao Vs Dr.Suresh Chandra Nayak

M/s.New Link Overseas Finance Ltd., Rep.by its Director, Vs M/s Sargam Metals Pvt. Ltd., Rep.by its Director