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>Will provision for arbitration not valid under Arbitration & Conciliation Act; court sets aside arbitrator appointment.</h1> <h3>VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA @ MANJU Versus RAGHUNANDAN SHARMA @ BABURAM & ORS.</h3> The court held that the provision in the will for arbitration did not constitute a valid arbitration agreement as defined under the Arbitration & ... - Issues involved: Dispute over possession of property, validity of will, appointment of arbitrator under section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.Summary:1. The case involved a dispute between two brothers over property possession and the validity of a will left by their father.2. The brothers filed separate civil suits, which were consolidated for trial, with executors of the will also involved in the legal proceedings.3. Executors of the will filed an application under section 8 of the Act, seeking arbitration to resolve the disputes, which led to the dismissal of both suits by the trial court.4. The appellant appealed the decision, arguing against the arbitration agreement and the dismissal of his suit.5. The first respondent accepted arbitration and filed a claim statement before the designated arbitrator, leading to objections raised by the appellant regarding jurisdiction and bias.6. The first respondent then sought the appointment of an independent arbitrator under section 11(6) of the Act, which was granted by the Chief Justice's designate.7. The appellant contended that the appointment of a new arbitrator should have awaited the decision of the pending appeal, but the court rejected this argument citing section 8(3) of the Act.8. The court further examined the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties as required under section 7 of the Act.9. It was held that the provision in the will for arbitration did not constitute a valid arbitration agreement as defined under the Act.10. The court emphasized that the mere wish of the testator for arbitration does not establish a binding arbitration agreement among the parties.11. The court concluded that there was no valid arbitration agreement between the parties, and the appointment of an arbitrator was set aside.12. The decision focused solely on the arbitration agreement issue, without delving into the validity of the will or the declaration made by the deceased.Judges: R.V. Raveendran and Radhakrishnan, K.S., JJ.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
