Refrigeration & Appliances & Ors. Vs. Jayaben Bharatkumar Thakkar & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2663 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 217 of 2000)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 217 of 2000)
Petitioner: Refrigeration & Appliances & Ors.
Respondent: Jayaben Bharatkumar Thakkar & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2663 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 217 of 2000)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 217 of 2000)
Judges: S.B. MAJMUDAR & Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 17, 2000
Head Note:
ARBITRATION
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 8 – Application under – Maintainability – Certified copy of agreement not filed – Another application filed – Technical objection regarding maintainability given up. Held that in view of the facts, orders of courts below are set aside and remanded back for decision with new application.
(Paras 4,6)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned senior Counsel for the appellants as well as learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and
3 who are the only contesting respondents.
3. The short question is whether the application filed by the appellants before the trial court under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) was maintain-able. That application was held to be not maintainable because certified copy of the agreement was not filed. The High Court has confirmed that order.
4. During these proceedings, learned Counsel for the respondents fairly stated that he gives up this technical objection as anoth-er application is already moved by the appellants before the trial court under Section 8 of the Act. In that view of the matter he has no objection if this technical objection is not entertained any further. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the trial court as confirmed by the High Court and remand the application filed by the appellants on 04th March, 1999 to be clubbed with the new application filed by them on 16th November, 1999 for being decided by the learned Trial Judge in accordance with law on merits.
5. It is made clear that the technical objection against the maintainability of the earlier application due to not filing of certified copy of the agreement does not survive in view of the fair stand taken by the learned Counsel for the respondents in the present proceedings.
6. It may also be stated that technical objections regarding step-in-aid as well as regarding maintainability of the applica-tion because of not filing of the certified copy of the agreement are given up by the respondents with the result that the remanded proceedings and the other pending applications will now have to be decided according to law on merits.
7. We make no observations on the merits of the controversy between the parties.
8. The Civil Appeal is allowed accordingly.
9. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned senior Counsel for the appellants as well as learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and
3 who are the only contesting respondents.
3. The short question is whether the application filed by the appellants before the trial court under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) was maintain-able. That application was held to be not maintainable because certified copy of the agreement was not filed. The High Court has confirmed that order.
4. During these proceedings, learned Counsel for the respondents fairly stated that he gives up this technical objection as anoth-er application is already moved by the appellants before the trial court under Section 8 of the Act. In that view of the matter he has no objection if this technical objection is not entertained any further. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the trial court as confirmed by the High Court and remand the application filed by the appellants on 04th March, 1999 to be clubbed with the new application filed by them on 16th November, 1999 for being decided by the learned Trial Judge in accordance with law on merits.
5. It is made clear that the technical objection against the maintainability of the earlier application due to not filing of certified copy of the agreement does not survive in view of the fair stand taken by the learned Counsel for the respondents in the present proceedings.
6. It may also be stated that technical objections regarding step-in-aid as well as regarding maintainability of the applica-tion because of not filing of the certified copy of the agreement are given up by the respondents with the result that the remanded proceedings and the other pending applications will now have to be decided according to law on merits.
7. We make no observations on the merits of the controversy between the parties.
8. The Civil Appeal is allowed accordingly.
9. No costs.
