Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the suit was liable to be stayed under the arbitration clause and whether the dispute regarding liability to excise duty was referable to arbitration.
Analysis: The application for stay was under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The arbitration clause was construed in the context of the agreement, and it was held not to extend to the fundamental question whether excise duty was payable on the goods supplied. That question was treated as an intricate issue of law requiring adjudication by a competent court, particularly because the Central Government was a necessary party for its determination. The defendant-company was regarded as only a pro forma party in relation to that controversy, and the suit could not be stifled on the basis of the arbitration clause.
Conclusion: The stay of suit was unwarranted and the dispute was not referable to arbitration.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the stay order was set aside, and the suit was directed to proceed before the trial court in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: A dispute involving the substantive question whether excise duty is payable, when its determination depends on parties outside the arbitration agreement and on a question of law not clearly covered by the clause, is not referable to arbitration for the purpose of staying the suit.