Chennai 18 v. Chennai 106
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 27 Sep 2004
- Bench
- M CHOCKALINGAM
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed, setting
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 s. 8
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 7 r. 11
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. It is not in controversy that Ex.P6 contains an arbitration clause (55). According to the petitioners, as per the said clause, the matter has got to be settled between the parties by way of an arbitration, and the same has been referred to in…
Judgment
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM C.R.P.(PD).No.814 of 2004 CMP No.7926 of 2004
The General Manager Tamil Nerd Indian oil Corporation Ltd., 139, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai 34.
The Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai Divisional Office 500 Anna Salai Teynampet, Chennai 18
The Manager (Sales) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 500 Annasalai, Teynampet Chennai 18. .. Petitioners -vs- S.Thanigaimani COCO Job Contractor Jawaharlal Nehru Salai Inner Ring Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai 106. .. Respondent This civil revision petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 19.4.2004 made in I.A.No.6725/2004 in O.S.No.1331/2004 on the file of the VII Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai. !For Petitioners : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan Senior Counsel ^For Respondent : Mr.G.Masilamani Senior Counsel :ORDER Aggrieved over an order of the learned VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dismissing an application seeking rejection of the plaint, under Sec.8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, the defendants have brought forth this revision petition. 2. The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.1331 of 2004 seeking a declaration and permanent injunction. The defendants, who are the petitioners before this Court, entered appearance and filed the instant application seeking the relief of rejection of the plaint. The said application was opposed by the respondent/plaintiff stating that the application was not maintainable. The lower Court dismissed the application on two reasons. Firstly, the issue to be decided in the case, was one which could be decided only in t he suit. Secondly, the petitioners, who have sought the rejection of the plaint, have not come forward with an application under Sec.8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking a direction from the Court to refer the dispute to arbitration. 3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent also. Affidavit in support of the application before the lower Court is perused.
Operative part
It is not in controversy that Ex.P6 contains an arbitration clause (55). According to the petitioners, as per the said clause, the matter has got to be settled between the parties by way of an arbitration, and the same has been referred to in the affidavit in support of the application, and hence, instead of approaching for arbitration, the plaintiff has filed the suit, and under the circumstances, the suit has got to be rejected. True it is that the petitioners before this Court, who are the defendants, have not sought the relief in the said interlocutory application that the matter has got to be referred to arbitration; but, they have sought the rejection of the plaint. It remains to be stated that in the petition filed before the lower Court, the defendants have not only mentioned Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., but also Sec.8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and thus, it would be clear that the intention of the party while making the petition before the lower Court, was to get an order under Sec.8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 5. It is also an admitted position that Clause 55 of Ex.P6 speaks of the arbitration clause. In such circumstances, the reason adduced by the lower Court that the petitioners have not sought a direction by the Court to refer the matter to arbitration, but have asked for the rejection of the plaint cannot be accepted. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the lower Court has got to be set aside, remitting the matter back to the lower Court. 6. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed, setting aside the order of the lower Court and remitting the matter back to the lower Court. It is made clear that the petitioners should be given an opportunity for making necessary amendments in the application before the lower Court. On such amendment, an opportunity should be given to the respondent/ plaintiff for making his counter. The lower Court is directed to dispose of the application on merits and in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is closed. Index: yes Internet: yes To: The Registrar City Civil Court Chennai. nsv/
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed, setting
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 8; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 7 r. 11.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 27 Sep 2004. The bench was M CHOCKALINGAM.
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.