YOGI AGARWAL versus M/S, INSPIRNFION CLOTHES & U AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 895 · Decided: 01-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

_,I 
[2008) 16 S.C.R. 895 
YOGI AGARWAL 
A 
"' 
-":, 
v. 
M/S, INSPIRNFION CL~THES & lJ AND ORS. 
(Special Leave P~titiPfl (Q) Ng, ~~333/2008) 
DEC~MBER 1, 2ooa 
B 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
-+-
ARBITRATION ANO CONG/LIA TION ACT, 1996: 
s. 8 rlw s. 7 - Application by defendant in suit seeking· c 
reference to arbitration - HELD: In order to constitute an 
areftration agreement for purpo.ses Of SS. 7 and 8, two. 
pgnqifion~ ~houlq be satisfied - Firstly, it should be between 
the p@rti@s to the dis[!ute - Secondly, it should relate to or be 
applic;able to the disput~ - In th@ instant case, neither of the · D 
two conditions was satisfif3d ,.,... Firstly, the suit related to 
transactions said to have taken place between plaintiff and 
7 
defendant no. 1 company and its two directors, whereas the 
t 
documents put forth as containing the arbitration agreement 
related to some transactions between a proprietary concern ·E 
of defendant no. 2 and plaintiff - Secondly, the provision for 
er-/:Jitration is not contained in any contract or document 
.,_' 
~-" ' 
, ' 
I 
I 
I 
• 
relating to the suit transapfions, but contained in documents 
relating to some unconnected independent transactions -
Defendants, in ff1f#( ;;Jppfiqation uls. 8, did not even allege F 
th~t there was an arbitration agreement in regard to the 
,._ 
IJY/;Jj@p( matter of the suit- What they alleged was that 'subject 
m~tter pf the suit' was similar to or identical to with the subject 
matter qf the arbitration agreement' - That does not entitle 
tht?m tp see/< relief u/s 8 - As there was no ·arbitration 
f!lgrnement', the requirements of s. 7 were not met -
G 
Consequently, rejection of the application filed by defendants 
~~ 
" 
uls 8 does not call for interference - Further, there is a delay 
of 182 days in filing the petition - The only reason assigned 
by the petitioner, a seasoned businessman, to explain the 
' 
895 
H 
( 
896 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 
' 
A 
delay is that he was confused by diverse opinions about 
filing of special leave petition -
The explanation is neither 
' '/-
satisfactory nor sufficient to condone the delay -
Delay/ 
Laches. · 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave 
Petition (C) No. 29333/2008. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 29.11.20Q7 of 
"'t-
the High Court of Calcutta at Calcutta in C.O. No. 1258of1006. 
c 
Shyam Divan, Sunil Singhania and Sarad Kum~r 
Singhania for the Appellant. 
The Order of the Court was deliv~red by 
D 
ORPER 
R.V. RAV~f.:NORAN J, 1. Dismissal of an application 
under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 
('the Act' for short), filed by the defendants in a money suit .(filed 
1 
by the first respondent herein against three defendants, that is, 
·~ 
E 
third respondent company, and its two directors namely, 
petitioner and second respondent), affirmed by the High Court, 
has led· to the filing of this special leave petition. For 
convenience, we will refer to the parties by their rank in the suit. 
F 
2. There is a delay of 1 ~2 d.~Y§ in filing this petitipn, The 
only reason assigned by the· petitioner, a $easoned 
businessman, to explain the delay is that he was confused by 
--i· 
diverse opinions about filing of special leave petition. The 
explanation is neither satisfactory nor sufficient to condone the 
delay. Even assuming that the delay is condonable, we find that 
G 
the special leave petition is liable to be rejected on merits. 
3. The plaintiff -filed the suit on 9.9.2003 for recovery of 
Rs.9,48, 143 with interest allegedly due in regard to (i) price of 
,:f.... 
two consignments supplied by plaintiff to\the nominees of the 
. 
. 
., 
H 
first defendant company and (ii) value of nine samples made 
YOGI AGARWAL v. MIS. INSPIRATION CLOTHES & U 
897 
AND ORS. [RV. RAVEENDRAN, J.] 
,? 
available by the plaintiff to defendants. In the said suit, 
A 
-\. 
defendants made an application dated 17 .12.2005 under 
section 8 of the Act, for referring the parties to arbitration. To 
show the existence of arbitration agreement: the defendants 
relied upon three invoices of 'Yash Traders', a proprietary 
concern of the second defendant (petitioner herein), dated 
B 
2.11.1999, 22.6.2001 and 11.2.2003 in regard to the sale of 
+-
cotton fabric by the said Yas~ Traders.to the plaintiff cont~ining 
.. 
the following note: "All disputes pertaining to this transaction if 
~my will be subject to the Arbitration Rules & Regulations of 
j 
Bha

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