Disposed

Iqbal Singh Pannu v. M/S Ludhiana Integrated Textile Park Ltd. and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Jul 2013CR/3237/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses a civil revision regarding a suit for specific performance barred by an arbitration clause. The court observed that the clause applied to the dispute and directed the court below to recall the dismissal and consignment of the plaint to records, allowing the matter to be resolved via arbitration.

What did the court decide?

The court below is directed to recall the dismissal of the suit and con-sign the plaint to records, as the dispute is to be resolved via arbitration.

Iqbal Singh Pannu Vs M/S Ludhiana Integrated… — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Rajan Kumar 2013.07.23 13:51 I am the author of this[1] document Chandigarh

¶2

CR No.3237 of 2012(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No.3237 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: 18.07.2013

¶5

Col. (Retd.) Iqbal Singh Pannu aged about 67 years son of Shri Kuldip Singh, Proprietor of M/s Lean Impex, E-728, Phase VIII, Focal Point, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana.

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Ludhiana Integrated Textile Park Ltd. Regd. Office at Flat No.E, 4^th Floor, Surya Kiran Complex, 92, Mall Road, Ludhiana through its Director and others.

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶11

Present:Mr. Ajay Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Sumeet Mahaja, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 2.

¶13

¶14

1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO

¶15

2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO

¶16

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO

¶17

K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)

¶18

In a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, the defendant relied on a clause in the agreement providing for arbitration through Clause 9.2 and applied under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for reference of the matter to arbitration. The Court dismissed the suit and directed that the reference to be made to arbitration in the manner contemplated by law. The Clause 9.2(i) of the

¶19

CR No.3237 of 2012(O&M)

¶20

[2]

¶21

agreement itself provides that the arbitration shall be by a sole arbitrator and if they are unable to agree to a sole arbitrator, a panel of three arbitrators, the two arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party, who shall themselves nominate a third arbitrator.

¶22

The plaintiff''s contention is that the arbitration clause does not refer to a dispute emanating between the parties that has resulted in cancellation of membership of an allotment. The further contention is that the Court could not have dismissed the suit. It should have been only consigned to records.

¶23

As regards the plea that the arbitral clause will not apply, I would find the objection to be not tenable. Admittedly, the defendant, who was a party, has not executed the sale despite receiving a substantial portion of consideration which, however, is denied by the defendant. There surely exists a dispute and I do not have any doubt in my mind that the language employed under the clause admits that even the relief of specific performance could be worked out only before the arbitrator for the dispute has ultimately resulted in the plaintiff's not obtaining a lease deed and is, therefore, aggrieved by such refusal. The reference to arbitrator is, therefore, justified.

¶24

The counsel has issues about the dismissal of the suit

¶25

CR No.3237 of 2012(O&M)

¶26

[3]

¶27

and will be satisfied if the plaint is merely ordered to be consigned to records. The learned senior counsel appearing for respondents No.1 & 2 has no objection to such a course. The reference to dismissal of the suit in the order of the Court below is recalled and it is directed that the plaint instituted by the plaintiff be consigned to records as not requiring any disposal since the parties' dispute will be resolved through a reference to arbitration in the manner contemplated under the agreement.

¶28

The civil revision is disposed with the above directions.

¶29

( K. KANNAN ) JUDGE

¶30

18^th July, 2013 Rajan

Iqbal Singh Pannu v. M/S Ludhiana Integrated Textile Park Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iqbal Singh Pannu v. M/S Ludhiana Integrated Textile Park Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

(O&M) Darshan Singh Vs Sarup Singh etc.

(O&M) Tehal Singh and Ors. Vs Puran Singh and Ors.

Mohinder Singh Vs the Hoshiarpur Improvement

Yash Pal & Anr. Vs M/S Sat Guru Rice Mills & Ors.

Rajinder Paul Puri Vs Anand Dev Puri & Ors.

Randhir Singh Vs Rajbala & Ors.