Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.23 seconds)

M/S Reliance Digital Media Ltd vs M/S Jawed Habib Hair Xpreso Ltd on 20 February, 2014

11. Mr.Bhatia would then rely on the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in Sathish Raj and another v. Atlanta Applied Dynamics (India) Pvt. Ltd. and another ; 2007 (1) Arb. LR 436 (Madras) to contend that the parties can enter into any contract containing clause for arbitration to refer any dispute for arbitration. But when there is a special Act covering the field of a particular dispute, the provisions of that Act alone have to be invoked and the dispute cannot be referred to any other mode of adjudication. The Court was considering the provisions of the local rent law of the State. It may be kept in mind that the Civil Court had Kumar Paritosh 2014.02.25 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.5358 of 2012 : 10 : primary jurisdiction while Rent Controllers are statutory authorities set up for the purpose of adjudicating landlord-tenant disputes. The jurisdiction of these adjudicators cannot be by-passed by an arbitration intervention through the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. When there are special or general authorities exercising jurisdiction over the relief claimed in subject matter jurisdiction, then the arbitration clauses can be invoked for arbitration purposes but not for rights exercised in rem by an oppressor of rights.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - R N Raina - Full Document

M/S. Health Care Pharmacy vs The Deputy Registrar Of on 22 December, 2017

18. The Tenancy between the petitioner and the respondent is in dispute and the said dispute of a civil nature and it would not take away the right of the parties. As the dispute between the parties is of a civil dispute in simplicitor, the right of the petitioner to approach the civil court cannot be held to be a bar and the said relief cannot at all be granted by the machineries created under the Act and in view of the same, the petitioner is well within his right to file the suit before the civil Court and the Court below has fallen into an error, in coming to the conclusion that the bar under Section 156 of the Act is applicable to the case on hand, is not correct and the said order is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. In the case of Sathish Raj vs. Atlanta Applied Dynamics (India), in CRP (PD) No.673 of 2006, this Court has observed as follows in paragraphs 8, 11, 17 & 20 :.
1