Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.30 seconds)Section 11 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Ravi Prakash Goel vs Chandra Prakash Goel & Anr on 21 March, 2007
20. An arbitration does not get abated merely on the death of
the party. The claims under the arbitration agreement can be
prosecuted by/against the legal representatives of the deceased party.
The Supreme Court in Ravi Prakash Goel v. Chandra Prakash
Goel3 explaining the scope of Section 40 held that a legal
representative can seek appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11
of the Act, 1996. The Court also held that arbitrator can be appointed
even in the absence of a probate to a Will Deed based on which the
legal representative claims a right to represent the deceased. The
relevant paragraphs are extracted below:
Smt. Prem Lata & Anr vs M/S. Ishar Dass Chaman Lal & Ors on 10 January, 1995
28. In the instant case, the appellant being the only son of his
deceased mother, is undisputedly a partner in the partnership
firm with the respondents especially where the dispute
concerning the partnership affairs had arisen already during her
lifetime. The view taken in the impugned order that the appellant
has no presently establishable binding arbitration agreement with
the respondents is erroneous in law and facts. The impugned
order is also bad in law in the teeth of the law laid down by this
Court in Prem Lata v. IsharDass Chaman Lal [(1995) 2 SCC
145 : AIR 1995 SC 714] . This apart, the appointment of
arbitrator could not be rejected on the ground of non-probate
of the will executed by the mother when no family member is
disputing the will and the appellant's claim vis-à-vis the
partnership firm, even otherwise also the appellant is the legal
heir of the deceased partner being her only son. In our view,
non-probate of will is not a germane factor to be considered at
the time of appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 of the
Arbitration Act. In our opinion, the partnership deed clearly
recites that all the disputes touching the affairs of the partnership
12
firm were referable to arbitrator and it cannot be gainsaid that
the dispute regarding accounts of the partnership firm is a
dispute touching the affairs of the firm.
Vidya Drolia vs Durga Trading Corporation on 14 December, 2020
28. It is relevant to note that the Supreme Court in Vidya
Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation5 laid down the test to
exercise power under Section 11 of the Act, 1996. In his separate
opinion, Hon'ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana, Former Chief Justice of
India, held as follows:
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Daulat Ram & Ors vs Sodha & Ors on 16 November, 2004
14. The Respondent filed I.A. No. 4 of 2022, I.A. No. 5 of
2022 and I.A. No. 6 of 2022 to recall the orders dated 22.06.2022
passed in I.A. No. 1 of 2022, I.A. No. 2 of 2022 and I.A. No. 3 of
2022 whereby Applicant No. 2 was impleaded as the legal
representative of the original Applicant. The Respondent contends
that Applicant No. 2 cannot be impleaded as the legal heir as other
legal heirs of the original Applicant were not arrayed as parties.
Relying on the decisions in Daulat Ram v. Sodha1 and Bhagat Ram
v. Suresh2, the Respondent contended that production of Will Deed is
insufficient to prove that Applicant No. 2 is the legal heir of the
1
(2005) 1 SCC 40.