Swati Narendra Sangani v. S. Kumars Online Ltd
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
...Plaintiff Versus S. Kumars Online Ltd. ...Defendants Mr. K.M. Sangani, Advocate, for Plaintiff. Mr. M.N. Ramalingaiah, Advocate, for Defendants. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 24TH AUGUST, 2006 : 24TH AUGUST, 2006 DATED DATED : 24TH AUGUST, 2006 P.C. P.C.P.C.
The Defendants in this Notice of Motion seeks that the suit be referred to arbitration.
The suit is filed to recover a sum of about Rs.3,45,000/- together with interest on the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- @ 24% p.a. The claim arises under and in respect of a franchise agreement dated 25th July,
2000. Clause 19 of the agreement reads as under :- "19. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
19.1 Any dispute arising between the : 2 : parties under this Agreement, regarding the interpretation of the Agreement or otherwise shall be referred for resolution to an Arbitrator appointed in this behalf by the Company, and the Award made by such Arbitrator shall be binding on the parties. The Arbitration shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The language of the arbitration shall be English and the venue of the arbitration shall be Mumbai.
19.2 In case of any complaint or dispute with regard to the internet service provided by the Company, such complaint or dispute shall be a matter between the company and the Franchisee only. The Government, Department of Telecommunications, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited or any other service provider licensing the connectable systems shall not be a party to any such complaint / dispute. "
The amount payable under the agreement itself is dispute as the quantification thereof is disputed. This is not a case where there is no dispute : 3 : whatsoever. The Defendants are entitled to the order prayed for in view of section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
In the circumstances, the Notice of Motion is absolute in terms of prayer (a).
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 45.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 24 Aug 2006. The bench was S VAZIFDAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.