Arbitration Law
Mode of Citation- ILC-2017-SC-ARB-....
Get started with Indian Law Cases
Your password will be generated automatically and will be sent to your email-id provided in this form.
Full Name
Email ID
(this email-id will be treated as your User ID also)
Address
City
Mobile No
* Mobile No is required for verification of identity
 Bare Acts  | Legal Resources  | Lawyer Locater  | Articles  | Legal Dictionary  | Download Desktop Software  | Subscription   Home   |   E-Journal  |  Sign-In  | Contact Us  | Disclaimers

Arbitration Law
 Search Tips
Arbitration Law
Mode of Citation- ILC-2017-SC-ARB-....
Judgement Subject Index/Important Decision/Topic

ILC-2014-SC-ARB-Mar-2

Ranjit Kumar Bose & Anr. Vs. Anannya Chowdhury & Anr.

Head Note

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996  - Section 2 (3) , Section 8 , Section 16

West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 - Sections 6 - Suit for eviction - Tenancy agreement - Invocation of arbitration clause - Legality - Appellants (landlord/plaintiff) filed a suit against the respondents (tenants/defendants) for eviction, arrears of rent, arrears of municipal tax, mesne profit and for permanent injunction before Trial Court - Respondents filed an application u/s. 8 of 1996 Act stating therein that tenancy agreement contained an arbitration agreement in cl. 15 and prayed that all disputes in suit be referred to an arbitrator - Trial Court dismissed petition - Aggrieved respondent filed an application before HC and HC by impugned judgment held that if any dispute is raised regarding arbitrability of such dispute before the Arbitral Tribunal, such dispute would be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal - Aggrieved appellant field instant appeal - Sec. 6 of 1997 Act was one such law which clearly bars arbitration in a dispute relating to recovery of possession of premises by the landlord from the tenant - Since the suit filed by appellants was for eviction, it was a suit for recovery of possession and could not be referred to arbitration because of a statutory provision in s. 6 of 1997 Act - HC was not correct in coming to conclusion that as per the decisions of SC, Court has no alternative but to refer the parties to arbitration in view of the clear mandate in s. 8 of 1996 Act - On the contrary, the relief claimed by appellants being mainly for eviction, it could only be granted by the 'Civil Judge having jurisdiction' in a suit filed by the landlord as provided in s. 6 of 1997 Act - Expression 'Civil Judge having jurisdiction' would obviously mean the Civil Judge who has jurisdiction to grant the other reliefs; decree for arrears of rent, decree for recovery of arrears of proportionate and enhanced municipal taxes, a decree for mesne profits and a decree for permanent injunction claimed in the suit - Matter was remanded to Civil Judge, who would proceed with the suit - Impugned judgment passed by HC was set aside - Appeal allowed.

Topic(s)-Eviction – Tenancy agreement







Full Judgement Body


     
@2016 Indian Law
Name
Email ID
Please Wait..