Dismissed

M/s. Cement Corporation of India Ltd., v. M/s. Amulya Packaging System Pvt. Ltd.

Telangana HC3 Jun 2013CRP/956/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge Court dismissed the civil revision petition. It held that if genuineness of an admission letter is disputed, the trial court cannot be faulted for allowing the suit; such issues require trial findings under CPC principles.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed with observation that trial is required to ascertain genuineness of disputed admission letter.

M/s. Cement Corporation of India Ltd., Vs M/s. Amulya… — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.956 of 2013

¶3

ORDER: - (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)

¶4

The respondent filed O.S.No.739 of 2008 in the Court of III Additional District Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at

¶5

L.B. Nagar against the petitioners for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,52,683/-. After receipt of summons in the suit, the petitioners filed I.A.No.297 of 2010 under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) read with Section 151 C.P.C with a prayer to direct the respondent herein to invoke the arbitration clause contained in the work order dated 25.07.1997. According to the petitioners, the suit amount is referable to the work order and since there is an arbitration clause in the agreement, the respondent is under obligation to invoke the same.

¶6

The respondent filed a counter opposing the I.A. It is stated that though the suit amount is referable to work order, the petitioners have admitted the liability through letter dated 19.05.2005 and in that view of the matter, there is no necessity to invoke the arbitration clause. The trial Court dismissed the I.A through order dated 30.05.2011. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri N. Narasimha Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. M. Sowjanya, the learned counsel representing Sri G. Dhananjai, the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶7

The suit claim is based upon the work order between the petitioners on the one hand and the respondent on the other hand. It is no doubt true that there is an arbitration clause in the work order. However, it is necessary to note that the arbitration arises when a dispute arises between the parties. The respondent pleaded that the petitioners have admitted their liability through letter dated 19.05.2005. If that is true, the necessity to invoke the arbitration clause may not arise. On the other hand, if the said letter is not true, the respondent invariably has to seek arbitration. Much would depend upon the finding, which the trial Court may have to record on the genuinity and truthfulness of the letter dated 19.05.2005.

¶8

Section 8 of the Act is almost akin to the procedure to be invoked

¶9

under Rule 11 of Order VI C.P.C. In that behalf, the undisputed facts need to be taken into account. If there is any difference of opinion between the parties, the only course open to the Court is to undertake trial and record its findings on such questions.

¶10

The trial Court took note of the fact that the amount claimed by the respondent is covered by letter dated 19.05.2005 said to have been executed by the petitioners. As long as that contention remains, or is not disputed, the filing of the suit cannot be found fault with. If the pleadings of the parties warrant any issue to be framed on the truthfulness or otherwise of the letter dated 19.05.2005, steps need to be taken accordingly. If the finding on the letter is in favour of the petitioners, they can press for invocation of arbitration clause, even at that stage.

¶11

Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs. The Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this revision shall stand disposed of.

¶12

_________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶13

S.V. BHATT , J

¶14

Date: 03.06.2013 va

M/s. Cement Corporation of India Ltd., v. M/s. Amulya Packaging System Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Cement Corporation of India Ltd., v. M/s. Amulya Packaging System Pvt. Ltd.

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

Boppana Rani Vs Boppana Satyanarayana (died per L.Rs.)

B. Narsing Rao Vs Smt. P. Sucharitha

K.R. Venugopal Vs M/s. Taha Construction

Ahmed Bin Saleh Sadi, Vs Badarunnisa Begum

Reemana Kaushik Vs Shobhit Kaushik

G.Vijaya Kumar Vs Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner