LexANANTHESH BHAKTA REPRESENTED BY MOTHER USHA A.BHAKTA & ORS. versus NAYANA S. BHAKTA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A [2016] 12 S.C.R. 62 ANANTHESH BHAKTA REPRESENTED BY MOTHER USHA A.BHAKTA & ORS. v. NAYANA S. BHAKTA & ORS. B (CivilAppealNo.10837 of2016) c NOVEMBER 15, 2016 [R. K. AGRAWAL AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: s.8(2) - Interpretation of - Application for reference of parties to arbitration not to be entertained unless accompanied by original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof - When not applicable - Held: s.8(2) has to be interpreted to mean that the Court shall not consider any application for reference of D parties to arbitration, unless acco111panied by original arbitration agreement or duly certified copy thereof - However, filing the application without such original or certified copy. but bringing original arbitration agree111ent on record at the ti111e when the Court is considering the application shall not entail rejection of the E F application uls. 8(2) - On facts, the original Deeds of Partnership and Retirement from Partnership, containing arbitration clause, were filed by respondents-defendants, three days after filing the application seeking reference to arbitration - It was only after filing of original deeds that the Court proceeded to decide the application - Furthe1; the deeds were also relied 011 by the appellants- plaintiffs themselves - Thus, appellants' plea that application of respondents was liable to be rejected u/s;8, dismissed. Disputes relating to benefits arising out of Deeds of Partnership qnd Retirement from Partnership - Deeds containing arbitration clause/agreement - Reference to arbitration - G Permissibility - Plea of Plaintiffs that dispute in question cannot be referred to arbitration since one of the defendants was not a party to the arbitration agreement - Held: Not acceptable, since the defendant was impleaded by. the plaintiffs themselves - Party - Partnership. H Dfaputes concerning unregistered partnership deed, if can 62 ANANTHESH BHAKTA REPRESENTED BY MOTHER USHA 63 A.BHAKTA v. NAYANA S. BHAKTA be referred to arbitration - Effect of such non-registration, 'if any - A Held: On facts, both the Deeds of Partnership and Retirement from Partnership contained an arbitration clause - Thus, when the partners and those claiming through them agreed to get the dispute settled by arbitration, it is not open for the appellants to contend that partnership being unregistered partnership, the dispute cannot B be referred to arbitration - Registration Act, 1908 - Partnership. Words and phrases - 'entertained' - Meaning of, in context to s.8(2), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Explained. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Section 8(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has to be interpreted to mean that the Court shall not consider any application filed by the party under Section- 8(1) unless it is accompanied by original arbitration agreement or duly certified copy thereof. The filing of the application without such original o"r certified copy, but bringing original arbitration agreement on record at the time when the Court is considering the application shall not entail rejection of the application under Section 8(2). [Para 22] [76-E-F] 1.2 In the present case, only after the original Retirement Deed and Partnership Deed were filed by the respondents- defendants on 12th May, the Court proceeded to decide the respond-ents-defendants' application, seeking reference to arbitration, on 9'h May. Further, the Retirement Deed and Partnership Deed were also relied by the plaintiffs. Hence, the argument that the defendants' application seeking reference to arbitration was not accompanied by original deeds and hence, liable to be rejected, cannot be accepted. The Plaintiffs admittedly were parties to the arbitration agreeme~t. On facts, it cannot be said that merely because one of the defendants i.e. defendant no. 6 whom they had impleaded was not party to the arbitration agreement, the dispute between the parties which essentially related to the benefits arising out of Retirement Deed and Partnership deed cannot be referred. [Paras 21, 23, 26] [76-D- E, G; 77-F-G] 1.3 In the present case there was no dispute between the parties that both Retirement Deed and Partnership Deed c D E F G H 64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 12 S.C.R. A contained an arbitration clause. When the partners and those who claim through partners agreed to get the d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.