TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Arbitration Clause Survives Contract Termination: Disputes Must Go to Arbitration</h1> <h3>DAMODAR VALLEY CORPN. Versus KK. KAR</h3> DAMODAR VALLEY CORPN. Versus KK. KAR - 1974 AIR 158, 1974 (2) SCR 240, 1974 (1) SCC 141 Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Court to decide the points raised in paragraph-16 of the appellant's petition.2. Whether the arbitration clause between the parties would cease to exist with the termination of the agreement.3. Admissibility of oral evidence touching the dispute in respect of the alleged final settlement of the claim.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Court to Decide Points Raised in Paragraph-16 of the Appellant's Petition:The court examined whether it had the jurisdiction to determine if the contract had ended by final payment, thereby nullifying the arbitration clause. The Subordinate Judge initially allowed the appellant to present evidence to establish that the contract had ended, which would mean the arbitration clause also ended. However, the High Court set aside this order, dismissing the appellant's application. The Supreme Court found that the question of whether there was a final settlement is itself a dispute arising 'upon' or 'in relation to' or 'in connection with' the contract, and thus falls within the purview of the arbitration clause.2. Whether the Arbitration Clause Would Cease to Exist with the Termination of the Agreement:The Supreme Court held that a contract's arbitration clause stands apart from the substantive terms of the contract and survives the termination of the contract for the purpose of resolving disputes arising out of it. The court clarified that unilateral repudiation does not terminate the contract; it requires mutual agreement. Therefore, the arbitration clause remains operative unless the contract is void or has been substituted by a new contract, rescinded, or altered to such an extent that it cannot subsist. The court cited several precedents, including Heyman v. Darwins Ltd. and The Union of India v. Kishorilal Gupta and Bros., to support the principle that an arbitration clause survives for resolving disputes related to the contract.3. Admissibility of Oral Evidence Touching the Dispute in Respect of the Alleged Final Settlement of the Claim:The Subordinate Judge initially allowed the appellant to present oral evidence to establish the final settlement, which would nullify the arbitration clause. The Supreme Court, however, emphasized that the existence of the arbitration clause is a necessary condition for its operation, and it perishes with the contract only if the contract itself is void or has been substituted by a new one. The court concluded that disputes regarding whether there was a final settlement fall within the scope of the arbitration clause and should be resolved through arbitration rather than court proceedings.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in dismissing the appellant's petition entirely. The Subordinate Judge should have been allowed to decide on the validity of the appointment of the sole arbitrator and other contentions raised by the appellant. The court directed the Subordinate Judge to dispose of the appellant's petition according to law. The appeal was partly allowed without costs, and the respondent's Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking further directions was dismissed.
TaxTMI 