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>High Court Upholds Arbitration Agreement Despite Technical Non-Compliance</h1> <h3>Parampal Singh and others Versus Punjab State Ware House Corpn., Chandigarh and others</h3> The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a lower court's decision to stay a suit and refer the matter to arbitration. The main ... - Issues:1. Compliance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 regarding the production of the arbitration agreement along with the application for referring the matter to the Arbitrator.Analysis:The judgment delivered by Justice S.S. Sudhalkar of the Punjab and Haryana High Court pertains to an appeal filed against an order by the Additional Civil Judge staying a suit and referring the matter to an Arbitrator. The main contention raised was the non-production of the certified copy of the Arbitration agreement by the respondents along with the application for reference, as required by Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellants argued that since the application was not accompanied by the original agreement or a certified copy, it should not have been entertained. However, the respondents pointed out that a copy of the agreement had been produced by the appellants themselves along with the plaint, which was on record as Exhibit P1. The court noted that although the application for reference was given earlier, the copy of the agreement was produced by the respondents later. The judge emphasized that the provision of the Act should not be interpreted to dismiss an application if the copy of the agreement was produced earlier by the other party, as long as it is on record. Therefore, the technical plea of non-compliance with Section 8(2) of the Act was not valid in this case.The learned counsel for the appellants did not press for other contentions raised, leading to the conclusion that the appeal lacked merit and deserved to be dismissed. Consequently, the appeal was indeed dismissed by the High Court, upholding the decision of the lower court to stay the suit and refer the matter to arbitration.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
