Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Shivani Electric Thru. Rakesh vs Shri Vaishnav Shaikshanik Evam ... on 20 July, 2015
1
R.P.No.287/2014
20/07/2015
Shri V.Khandelwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri V.Baheti, learned counsel for the respondents.
This Review Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 27.08.2014 passed in W.P.No.2768/2014. The writ petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the Trial Court dated 24.03.2014 rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and this Court by order dated 27.08.2014 finding no error in the order of the Trial Court has rejected the writ petition.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the execution of the rent note has been admitted by the respondent/landlord, therefore, the order of the Trial Court ought to have been set aside. He has further submitted that the order of this Court suffers from error in mentioning that there is no admission on the part of the respondent in respect of the execution of the alleged rent note.
As against this, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no apparent error on the face of the 2 record.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that undisputedly the alleged rent note is not signed by the respondent/plaintiff and no categorical admission of the respondent is on record admitting the execution of the rent note by the respondent. Considering this aspect of the matter, the Trial Court had reached to the conclusion that prima-facie the execution of the arbitration agreement is not established. This Court by the order dated 27.08.2014 in exercise of the limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 has dismissed the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Govind Rubber Ltd. Vs. M/s Louids Dreyfus Commodities Asia Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2014 (14) Scale 92, but for getting the benefit of the said judgment, the petitioner is required to establish by leading the evidence that the agreement is proved with the subsequent conduct or correspondence between the parties.
Thus, I am of the opinion that there is no apparent illegality in the order passed by this Court requiring review.
3The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) Judge VM