Bombay High Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Against Housing Society and Flat Owners for Lack of Arbitrable Dispute. Dispute over alleged oral agreement for redevelopment of building not covered by arbitration clause in share certificate.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 66
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, M/s Heritage Lifestyle & Developers Ltd., filed an arbitration petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes with the respondent, M/s Cool Breeze Co-operative Housing Society Limited and its flat owners. The petitioner claimed that there was an oral agreement for redevelopment of the society's building, and that the share certificate issued by the society contained an arbitration clause. The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The court examined the share certificate and found that it was not an agreement between the petitioner and the respondents, but rather a document between the society and its members. The court also noted that the alleged oral agreement was not supported by any evidence. The court held that for an arbitration agreement to exist, it must be in writing and must be between the parties to the dispute. Since the petitioner failed to establish any such agreement, the petition was dismissed. The court also observed that the dispute raised by the petitioner did not arise out of or in relation to any agreement containing an arbitration clause. Therefore, the petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Existence of Arbitration Agreement - Section 7, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The petitioner claimed an oral agreement for redevelopment of the society's building and relied on an arbitration clause in the share certificate issued by the society. The court held that the share certificate is not an agreement between the petitioner and the respondents, and the alleged oral agreement was not proved. Therefore, no arbitration agreement exists. (Paras 1-46)

B) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The court held that for appointment of an arbitrator, there must be a valid arbitration agreement. Since no such agreement was established, the petition for appointment of arbitrator was dismissed. (Paras 1-46)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether there exists a valid arbitration agreement between the petitioner and the respondents, and whether the dispute raised by the petitioner is arbitrable under the alleged arbitration clause.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Arbitration agreement must be in writing
  • Existence of arbitration agreement must be established
  • Dispute must arise out of or in relation to the agreement containing arbitration clause
  • Section 7 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
  • 1996
  • Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2014:BHC-OS:568

ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 600 OF 2013

0000-00-00

2014:BHC-OS:568

M/s Heritage Lifestyle & Developers Ltd.

M/s. Cool Breeze Co-operative Housing Society Limited & Ors.

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

Nature of Litigation

Arbitration petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes with the respondents.

Filing Reason

Petitioner claimed an oral agreement for redevelopment of the society's building and relied on an arbitration clause in the share certificate.

Issues

Whether there exists a valid arbitration agreement between the petitioner and the respondents. Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner is arbitrable under the alleged arbitration clause.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that there was an oral agreement for redevelopment and that the share certificate contained an arbitration clause. Respondents argued that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties and the share certificate was not an agreement with the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi

For an arbitration agreement to exist under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it must be in writing and between the parties to the dispute. A share certificate issued by a society to its members does not constitute an agreement between the society and a third party developer. The alleged oral agreement was not proved, and therefore no arbitration agreement exists.

Judgment Excerpts

The share certificate is not an agreement between the petitioner and the respondents. The alleged oral agreement was not proved.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 7, Section 11
  • Companies Act, 1956:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Against Housing Society and Flat Owners for Lack of Arbitrable Dispute. Dispute over alleged oral agreement for redevelopment of building not covered by arbitration clause in share certificate.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With. Court holds that no substantial question of law arises under Section 100 CPC where courts below concurrently found that plaintiffs f...