Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Rejection of Section 8 Application in Suit for Declaration of Deed as Void. Arbitration Clause in Agreements Held Not Applicable to Challenge to Registered Conveyance Deed as It Is Not a Dispute Arising from the Agreements.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, original plaintiffs, filed S.C. Suit No.1512 of 2021 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Vadgaon, Pune, seeking a declaration that a registered deed of conveyance is null and void as it is against their interest, and for cancellation of various agreements. The suit was filed against Madhurkumar Ramkrishnaji Bajaj and others. Upon filing, defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking reference of the dispute to arbitration based on arbitration clauses in agreements dated 31/03/2007 and 25/07/2008. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the dispute regarding the validity of the registered conveyance deed does not arise from the agreements containing the arbitration clause. The petitioners challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the arbitration clauses, which covered disputes arising from or in relation to the agreements. The court noted that the suit primarily challenges a registered deed of conveyance, which is a separate registered instrument and not part of the agreements. The court held that the dispute does not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement, as the arbitration clause cannot be invoked to challenge a registered document that is not part of the agreements. The court also discussed the concept of inherent lack of jurisdiction, stating that if a court lacks inherent jurisdiction, any decree is a nullity, but in this case, the civil court had jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order and confirming that the suit is not liable to be referred to arbitration.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Reference to Arbitration - The court considered whether a suit seeking declaration that a registered deed of conveyance is null and void can be referred to arbitration when the arbitration clause covers disputes arising from the agreements. Held that the dispute regarding the validity of the registered conveyance deed does not arise from the agreements containing the arbitration clause, as the deed is a separate registered instrument. The arbitration clause cannot be invoked to challenge a registered document that is not part of the agreements. (Paras 1-26)

B) Civil Procedure - Inherent Lack of Jurisdiction - The court examined the concept of inherent lack of jurisdiction versus lack of territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction. Held that if a court lacks inherent jurisdiction, any decree passed is a nullity and can be challenged at any stage. However, in this case, the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the arbitration clause did not cover the dispute. (Paras 20-26)

C) Arbitration Law - Scope of Arbitration Agreement - The court analyzed the arbitration clauses in the agreements dated 31/03/2007 and 25/07/2008. Held that the clauses only cover disputes arising from or in relation to those agreements. The challenge to the registered conveyance deed, which is a separate document, does not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. (Paras 3-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the dispute raised in the suit, seeking declaration that a registered deed of conveyance is null and void, falls within the ambit of the arbitration clause contained in the agreements dated 31/03/2007 and 25/07/2008, so as to warrant reference to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order rejecting the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court held that the dispute regarding the validity of the registered conveyance deed does not fall within the scope of the arbitration clause and the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Law Points

  • Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
  • 1996
  • arbitration clause
  • scope of arbitration agreement
  • dispute arising from agreement
  • registered deed of conveyance
  • civil suit for declaration
  • inherent lack of jurisdiction
  • prima facie existence of arbitration agreement
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (BOM) (12) 39

WRIT PETITION NO.8836 OF 2021 ALONG WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3940 OF 2021

2021-12-10

Smt. Bharati Dangre, J.

Mr. Devansh A. Mohta with Mr. Kiran S. Mohite for the petitioners; Mr. Pravin Samdani, senior counsel with Mr. Shriraj Dhruv, Ms. Keya Raval and Swati Sutar i/b Dhru & Co. for respondent No.1; Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar with Mr. Shriraj Dhruv, Ms. Keya Raval and Swati Sutar i/b Dhru & Co. for respondent No.2; Mr. Ruchit Dave i/b Rajani Associates for respondent No.3.

Sushma Shivkumar Daga & Anr.

Madhurkumar Ramkrishnaji Bajaj & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit seeking declaration that a registered deed of conveyance is null and void and for cancellation of agreements.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners (original plaintiffs) sought declaration that registered deed of conveyance is null and void and cancellation of various agreements.

Filing Reason

The petitioners claimed that the registered deed of conveyance was against their interest.

Previous Decisions

The trial court rejected the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 for reference to arbitration.

Issues

Whether the dispute raised in the suit falls within the arbitration clause contained in the agreements dated 31/03/2007 and 25/07/2008. Whether the civil court has inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit despite the arbitration clause.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the dispute regarding the validity of the registered conveyance deed does not arise from the agreements and thus is not covered by the arbitration clause. Respondents argued that the dispute is covered by the arbitration clause and the suit should be referred to arbitration.

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitration clause in an agreement only covers disputes arising from or in relation to that agreement. A challenge to a registered deed of conveyance, which is a separate registered instrument, does not arise from the agreement containing the arbitration clause and therefore cannot be referred to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioners before this court are the original plaintiffs, who have instituted S.C. Suit No.1512 of 2021 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Vadgaon, Pune seeking a declaration that the registered deed of conveyance is null and void as it is against the interest of the plaintiffs and for cancellation and termination of various agreements set out in prayer clauses (b) and (c) of the plaint. On the suit being filed, defendant Nos.1 and 2 took out an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arbitration Act'), for referring the dispute raised in the suit for arbitration, in terms of the arbitration clause contained in agreement dated 31/03/2007 read with agreement dated 25/07/2008 read along with the provisions of the Arbitration Act.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed S.C. Suit No.1512 of 2021 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Vadgaon, Pune. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking reference to arbitration. The trial court rejected the application. The petitioners challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No.8836 of 2021 before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 8
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court Quashes Minister's Order Granting Additional Ration Shop to Dairy Society in Second Revision — Second Revision Not Maintainable Under Essential Commodities Order 1975. Minister Exceeded Jurisdiction by Granting Additional Relief While Co...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Rejection of Nomination in Municipal Election — Proposer Not Authorized Representative Under Rule 4 of Maharashtra Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats (Election of President) Rules, 1981.