Dismissed

Mvl Ltd. v. M/S Grover Art Studio etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Dec 2010CR/2653/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the petitioner's application invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to challenge the trial Court's refusal to refer a dispute for arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, noting the lack of a signed agreement.

What did the court decide?

The petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 was dismissed; no interference called for.

Mvl Ltd. Vs M/S Grover Art Studio etc. — Arbitration | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CR No. 2653 of 2010

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.

¶4

CR No. 2653 of 2010 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: 13.12.2010

MVL Ltd.

....Petitioner

Versus

M/s. Grover Art Studio etc.

¶10

....Respondents.

¶11

Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh

¶12

1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ?

¶13

To be referred to reporters or not ?

¶14

Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?

¶15

Present: Mr. Rishab Bansal, Advocate

¶16

for the petitioner.

¶17

Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the respondent.

¶18

Alok Singh, J.(Oral)

¶19

Defendant – petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 10.3.2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jagadhari, whereby application moved by the defendant – petitioner under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was rejected.

¶20

Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff – respondent has filed

¶21

CR No. 2653 of 2010

¶22

¶23

suit for recovery. In the suit for recovery, defendant had appeared and sought so many adjournments and one fine morning, he moved an application under Section 8 of the Act, requesting the Court to refer the matter for arbitration as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the invoice order.

¶24

The trial Court has rejected the application having observed that the defendant has failed to place on record original agreement containing arbitration clause; alleged invoice filed by the defendant – petitioner does not contain signatures of either of the parties.

¶25

In the opinion of this Court, if alleged agreement containing the arbitration clause is not signed by the plaintiff, then it cannot be said that the plaintiff is bound to refer the dispute for arbitration.

¶26

No interference is called for.

¶27

Dismissed.

¶28

( Alok Singh ) Judge

¶29

13.12.2010 sk.

Mvl Ltd. v. M/S Grover Art Studio etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mvl Ltd. v. M/S Grover Art Studio etc.

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

Dharampal and Ors. Vs Gulab Chand and Ors.

Usha Rani Vs Kamal Nain and Others

M/S Quippo Telecom Vs Bachitter Singh

Fauja Singh Vs Chand Singh & Ors.

Urmila Devi etc. Vs District Employment Officer Et

M/S Prem Chand & Anr. Vs Vimla Rani & Anr.