Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)Section 340 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited & Anr vs M/S Verma Transport Company on 8 August, 2006
8. While holding so, I am conscious of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam
Ltd. vs. Verma Transport Company AIR 2006 SC 2800 where the
Apex court held the filing of an opposition to interim injunction to be
not precluding subsequent filing of an application under Section 8.
The reasoning therefor was that in the reply to injunction application
itself it was stated that the suit was not maintainable because of the
arbitration clause. It was further reasoned that when ex parte
injunction has been granted, the other party is forced to reply to
have the same vacated and such compulsion cannot disclose an
unambiguous intention to give up the benefit of arbitration
agreement. The Apex court thus held that taking step in the
proceeding must be confined to taking steps in the proceedings for
resolution of the dispute and not to taking steps for contesting
applications for interlocutory reliefs. However, in the present case
the Defendant No. 5 was not under any compulsion for filing
applications under Section 340 Cr.P.C. He, by calling upon the court
to adjudicate the said application, invited the court to under Section
340 (1) (a) Cr.P.C. to hold a preliminary inquiry and record a finding
to the effect that the document evidencing Agreement to sell of
which specific performance was claimed was forged and fabricated.
That is the very dispute which the arbitrator would be required to
adjudicate. The Defendant No. 5 having called upon the court to
return a finding on existence of Agreement to Sell, lost his right to
have the said question referred to arbitrator.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Section 8 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Everest Electric Works vs Himachal Futuristics Communications ... on 11 August, 2004
5. In my opinion, the Defendant No. 5 merely for the reason of
having applied under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act after 5 years
from the service of the summons and for the reason of having earlier
filed an application and withdrawn the same, is not debarred from
now invoking the said provision. Section 8 itself lays down the time
and manner of applying. Under Section 8, the application is to be
filed not later than while submitting the first statement on the
substance of the dispute. Thus as long as the application is filed not
later than while submitting the first statement on the substance of
the dispute, the same cannot be dismissed for the reason of delay.
See M/s Everest Electric Works vs. Himachal Futuristic
Communications Ltd. 113 (2004) DLT 304. Similarly, the earlier
application was withdrawn for the reason of the same having been
signed by the wife of the Defendant No. 5 who was found to be not
authorized to do so. Thus, the same cannot be considered as an
application filed by the Defendant No. 5. Even otherwise there was
no adjudication at that stage as to whether the provisions of Section
8 of the Act are attracted or not.
1