Cholamandalam Investment & Finance v. A. Rajan
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
109 of 2002 is set aside and this petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. In that view of the matter, the order of the Second Additional District Munsif, Dindigul dated 24.02.2003 made in I.A.No.218 of 2002 in O.S.No.109 of 2002 is set aside and this petition is allowed. Learned District Munsif, Dindigul is directed refer the dispute between…
Judgment
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.DINARAKAN C.R.P.(P.D) No. 2012 of 2003 C.M.P.No. 14594 of 2003
1. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co., Ltd., rep. through its Vice President, TIAM House, 28, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.
2. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co., Ltd., rep. through its Branch Manager, 24, New Agraharam Street, Palani Road, Dindigul - 2. .....Petitioners - Vs -
A. Rajan, S/o. Arumugam
A. Palaniappan S/o. Arumugam both residing at 15-B, Chellandiamman Koil 1st Street, Dindigul - 1. .....Respondents Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 24.02.2003 made in I.A.No.218 of 2002 in O.S.No.109 of 2002 on the file of Second Additional Munsif Court, Dindigul, as stated therein. !For Petitioner :: Mr. M.B.Raghavan ^For Respondents:: Mr. M. Ajmal Khan :
O R D E R By consent of both the parties, the main Civil Revision Petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal.
2. The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the order dated 24.02.2003 made in I.A.No.218 of 2002 in O.S.No.109 of 2002 by Second Additional District Munsif, Dindigul, refusing to refer the dispute between the parties for arbitration as per clause 23 of the Agreement, marked as Ex.R.1 is justified in law?
Admittedly, the respondents herein laid the suit, questioning the very validity of the agreement dated 15.06.2000, which provides for arbitration clause. In this regard, I am inclined to refer Section 1 6(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, which reads as follows:- The arbitral Tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including ruling on any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement and or that purpose (a) an arbitration clause which forms part of a contract shall be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract ; (b) a decision by the arbitral tribunal that the contract is null and void shall not entail ipso jure the invalidity of the arbitration clause.
As per Section 16(1) of the Act, the question including ruling on any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement also could be dealt with by the arbitral Tribunal.
Operative part
In that view of the matter, the order of the Second Additional District Munsif, Dindigul dated 24.02.2003 made in I.A.No.218 of 2002 in O.S.No.109 of 2002 is set aside and this petition is allowed. Learned District Munsif, Dindigul is directed refer the dispute between the parties, without prejudice for arbitration, exercising clause 23 of the agreement. The connected C.M.P is closed. Dpn/-
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: 109 of 2002 is set aside and this petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 19 Dec 2003. The bench was P D DINARAKAN.
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.