Madhya Pradesh High Court
Managing Director,Cmc,Ltd. vs M/S Jehovah Infotech Pvt.Ltd. on 16 August, 2024
Author: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
Bench: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:13822
1 CR-64-2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
ON THE 16th OF AUGUST, 2024
CIVIL REVISION No. 64 of 2007
MANAGING DIRECTOR,CMC,LTD. AND OTHERS
Versus
M/S JEHOVAH INFOTECH PVT.LTD. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arun Dudawat- learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri R.K. Soni- learned counsel for the respondents.
ORDER
This Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the order dated 24/03/2007 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.5-B/2004 whereby the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the petitioners/defendants has been dismissed.
Draped in brevity, the facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for the recovery of money against the petitioners on the basis of purchase order given to them by the petitioners/defendants. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiffs have performed their part of the said contract/purchase order but the defendants have not made the full payment.
The defendants/petitioners after receiving the notice filed an application before the trial Court on the ground that the purchase order/contract contains arbitration agreement and in light of the same the Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 20-08-2024 05:27:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:13822 2 CR-64-2007 trial Court has no other option except to refer the parties to the Arbitration.
The plaintiffs/respondents have stated in their reply that there is no dispute in respect of amount of the bill. Therefore, Clause 20 of the purchase order is not applicable. The trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the rival parties rejected the application filed by the petitioners on the ground that issue can be decided after filing of the written statement.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order i s patently illegal and without jurisdiction. The provisions of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act have not been taken into consideration. The Court has no authority to decide the dispute as the provisions of the Act are Mandatory in nature. Hence, prayer has been made to set-aside the impugned order and direct the trial Court to refer the parties to the Arbitration.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order and prayed for rejection of the petition.
Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material available on record.
As per the plaint averments the plaintiffs presented the bill of Rs.3,55,000/- to the defendants for payment and thereafter, the defendants have made payment of Rs.2,00,000/- out of that bill amount. Thus, part payment has also been made by the defendants. It is argued that the Arbitration Clause contained in the work order/contract is not attracted in such circumstances. As there is a dispute between the parties regarding the application of Arbitration clause in the matter and the conduct of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 20-08-2024 05:27:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:13822 3 CR-64-2007 defendants/petitioners, the trial Court did not committed any error or irregularity in holding that such issue can only be decided after filing of written statement by the defendants.
Looking to the nature of the above dispute, the judicial pronouncement relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the cases of Asian Avenues Private Limited Vs. Syed Shoukat Hussain [(2024) 6 SCC 630] , Kalpana Kothari Vs. Sudha Yadav and Others [(2002) 1 SCC 203] , Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. Jayesh H. Pandya and Another [(2003) 5 SCC 531], Agri Gold Exims Ltd. Vs. Sri Lakshmi Knits & Wovens and Others [(2007) 3 SCC 686] and Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd Vs. PinkCity Petroleums [(2003) 6 SCC 503] do not help them in any way as they move in different realm of facts.
Hence, no case for interference by this Court is made out. This Civil Revision stands dismissed accordingly.
(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY) JUDGE rahul Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 20-08-2024 05:27:50 PM