2005 JTR(SC) 1285
2006 1 ArbLR 214 ; 2006 1 SCC 419
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.N. VARIAVAAND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.
SAMEER BARAR AND OTHERS - Appellants
Versus
RATAN BHUSHAN JAIN AND OTHERS - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6154 of 2005
Decided on October 3,2005
The court's authority to prevent dispossession pending the appointment of an arbitrator and the applicability of Section 9 in such cases.
Act
Referred
:ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT : S.9
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : O.6 R.13, S.9, O.7 R.11(d)
Arbitration Clause - Civil Court Jurisdiction - The court directed that pending the appointment of an arbitrator and for three weeks thereafter, the appellants will not be dispossessed from the premises in their possession.
Fact of the Case:
The civil court felt that the suit was not maintainable due to the arbitration clause, and an application for appointment of an arbitrator had already been filed before the Chief Justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed that pending the appointment of an arbitrator and for three weeks thereafter, the appellants will not be dispossessed from the premises in their possession.
Issues: Jurisdiction of Civil Court, Application under Section 9
Ratio Decidendi: The court can treat an application as one under Section 9 even if the civil court feels that the suit is not maintainable due to the arbitration clause.
Final Decision: The appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
Arbitration Clause - Civil Court Jurisdiction - The court directed that pending the appointment of an arbitrator and for three weeks thereafter, the appellants will not be dispossessed from the premises in their possession.
Fact of the Case:
The civil court felt that the suit was not maintainable due to the arbitration clause, and an application for appointment of an arbitrator had already been filed before the Chief Justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed that pending the appointment of an arbitrator and for three weeks thereafter, the appellants will not be dispossessed from the premises in their possession.
Issues: Jurisdiction of Civil Court, Application under Section 9
Ratio Decidendi: The court can treat an application as one under Section 9 even if the civil court feels that the suit is not maintainable due to the arbitration clause.
Final Decision: The appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard parties.
3. Even if the civil court felt that, because of the arbitration clause the b suit was not maintainable, it could have treated the application to be one under Section 9. We are told that Arbitration Application No. 384 of 2005 has already been filed before the Chief Justice for appointment of an arbitrator by the respondents. We, therefore, direct that pending the appointment of an arbitrator and for three weeks thereafter, the appellants will not be dispossessed from the premises in their possession. The appellants to then C apply to the arbitrator for interim orders.
5. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
6. No order as to costs.