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>Dismissed appeal; costs on Appellant. High Court: joint development agreement valid, Section 11 petition maintainable. Arbitrator to act promptly.</h1> <h3>Khiviraj Motors Versus The Guanellian Society</h3> Khiviraj Motors Versus The Guanellian Society - TMI Issues involved: Interpretation of joint development agreement, validity of arbitration clause, authority of signatories, maintainability of petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.Interpretation of Joint Development Agreement:The appellant alleged a joint development agreement was signed between 'Father A. John Bosco' and the appellant regarding a property, with a clause for dispute resolution through arbitration. The Respondent Society claimed the President was not authorized to deal with the property, rendering the agreement null and void. The High Court held the agreement was between the Society and the Appellant, making the petition under Section 11 maintainable.Validity of Arbitration Clause:The Appellant argued the Society was not a party to the joint development agreement, thus the arbitration clause could not be invoked. Additionally, serious allegations of unfair means and undue influence should be decided by a civil court, not an arbitral tribunal. The Appellant's other contentions on title and merits were deemed irrelevant to the Section 11 proceedings.Authority of Signatories:Upon examination, it was found that the joint development agreement was signed by the President of the Gaunellian Society, not in his personal capacity. The Respondent Society was the first party to the agreement, making the petition under Section 11 maintainable as both parties were signatories to the agreement.Maintainability of Petition under Section 11:The Appellant claimed the owner of the property was Father A. John Bosco, not the Society. However, as the agreement was signed by the Society's President, the contention that the owner was not the Society was deemed absurd. The validity of the joint development agreement would be examined by the Arbitrator, regardless of allegations of unfair terms.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, with costs imposed on the Appellant. The Arbitrator was urged to proceed expeditiously, considering the delay caused by the special leave petition. The judgment focused on identifying the executant of the agreement, without delving into the authorization of Father A. John Bosco or the property's title.
TaxTMI 