SUSHMA SHIVKUMAR DAGA & ANR. versus MADHURKUMAR RAMKRISHNAJI BAJAJ & ORS

Citation: [2023] 15 S.C.R. 909 · Decided: 15-12-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIRUDDHA BOSE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 15 S.C.R. 909 : 2023 INSC 1081
909
CASE DETAILS
SUSHMA SHIVKUMAR DAGA & ANR.
v.
MADHURKUMAR RAMKRISHNAJI BAJAJ & ORS
(Civil Appeal No. 1854 of 2023)
DECEMBER 15, 2023
[ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: The trial Court referred the matter to 
arbitration and the said decision was upheld by the High Court. Whether 
the Trial Court and the High Court have rightly referred the matter to 
arbitration or the dispute is of such a nature that it is not liable to be referred 
to arbitration, as there was no arbitration clause in the Conveyance Deed 
dated 17.12.2019 or if there was, yet the matter in any case is such that it 
is not arbitrable.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – A civil suit was fi led by the 
appellants-plaintiff s herein seeking declaration that the conveyance deed 
dated 17.12.2019 was validly terminated and various other registered 
development agreements dated 17.09.2007, 20.11.2007, 30.11.2007, 
03.12.2007 and 27.02.2008 were null and void – Respondent-defendants 
fi led application u/s.8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – 
Matter was referred to arbitration – Propriety:
Held: In the instant case, there are broadly three objections of the 
appellants: The fi rst objection was regarding the absence of arbitration clause 
in the conveyance deed and the various development agreements – The 
Conveyance deed dated 17.12.2019 and the fi ve development agreements 
dated 17.09.2007, 20.11.2007, 30.11.2007, 03.12.2007 and 27.02.2008, 
all fi nd their source in the two Tripartite agreements dated 31.03.2007 
and 25.07.2008 – Both the Tripartite agreements contained the arbitration 
clause – The Trial Court and the High Court have rightly held that the 
broad language of the ‘arbitration clause’ in the two Tripartite agreements 
would cover the dispute raised by the appellants before the Civil Court 
 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
910
and hence rightly referred to arbitration – The second objection was that 
the suit fi led by the appellants is for cancellation of a document relating to 
immovable property i.e. land and it therefore amounts to an action in rem 
and hence arbitration is not the remedy – It is settled that whether it is a 
suit for cancellation of a deed or a declaration of rights rising from deed, it 
would only be an action in personam and not in rem – The third objection 
was regarding fraud – The plea of fraud raised by the appellants in their 
objection to the Section 8 application was never substantiated – Except for 
making a bald allegation of fraud there is nothing else – This Court has 
consistently held that a plea of fraud must be serious in nature in order to 
oust the jurisdiction of an Arbitrator – Both the trial Court and the High 
Court have given a correct fi nding on facts as well as law – No interference 
required.[Paras 6,18,19,20]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Limited and Others, 
[2011] 7 SCR 310 : (2011) 5 SCC 532; Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading 
Corpn., [2020] 11 SCR 1001 : (2021) 2 SCC 1; Uttarakhand Purv Sainik 
Kalyan Nigam Ltd. v. Northern Coal Field Ltd., (2020) 2 SCC 455– relied on.
NTPC Ltd. v. SPML Infra Ltd., (2023) 9 SCC 385; BSNL v. Nortel 
Networks, [2021] 2 SCR 644 : (2021) 5 SCC 738; Smt. M. Hemalatha Devi 
& Ors. v. B. Udayasri, 2023 INSC 870; Weatherford Oil Tool Middle East 
Ltd. v. Baker Hughes Singapore PTE 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1464; Deccan 
Paper Mills v. Regency Mahavir Properties, [2020] 13 SCR 427 : (2021) 
4 SCC 786; Aliens Developers (P) Ltd. v. Janardhan Reddy, 2015 SCC 
Online Hyd 370; Rashid Raza v. Sadaf Akhtar, [2019] 12 SCR 460 : (2019) 
8 SCC 710 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1854 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.2021 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Bombay in WP No.8836 of 2021.
Appearances:
911
Devansh Mohta, Shirish K. Deshpande, Ms. Rucha Pravin Mandlik, 
Kiran Shrirang Mohite, Ms. Ishita Y. Shah, Ms. Sonakshi Monga, Mohit 
Gautam, Apoorv Sharma, Advs. for the  Appellants.
Dr. A.m. Singhvi, Shyam Divan, Sr. Advs., Shriraj Dhruv, Ankur 
Saigal, Ms. Swati Sutar, Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyyer, Kaushtubh Singh, Udaya 
Aditiya Banerjee, Chirag Naik, Siddharth Seem, E. C. Agrawala, Tishampati 
Sen, Ms. Riddhi Sancheti, Anurag Anand, Ms. Tasmiya Taleha, Advs. for 
the Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JU

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.