TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 2114
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on June 14, 2006. The orders impugned in both these petitions were passed in two applications filed by M/s Spray Engineering Devices Limited, in the two civil suits filed by M/s IPROSUGAR Engineering Private Limited (one application in each suit), the said applications having been filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking that both the disputes as arise in the suits, be referred to an Arbitrator, in terms of the aforesaid arbitration clause. In one suit the plaintiff sought recovery of certain amounts it claimed were due to to it from the defendant company, whereas in the other suit the same plaintiff company sought a declaration that the defendant company, in terms of the aforementioned agreement dated June 14, 2006, was bound to pay royalty for the use of technology stated to have been imparted by the plaintiff to the respondent. Both the suits being tried by different Civil Judges, the applications were decided differently, with the application as is subject matter of Civil Revision No.548 of 2016 having been allowed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Chandigarh, vide the impugned order dated 29.09.2015, the said order therefore having been chal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Limited. 3. Despite the above, learned counsel for M/s Spray Engineering Devices Limited submits that the JVC having come into existence, it would be bound by the terms of the agreement entered into between M/s IPRO Industrieprojekt GmbH and M/s Spray Engineering Devices Limited, especially in view of the fact that even in the civil suits filed by M/s IPROSUGAR Engineering Pvt. Ltd, it is this very agreement which is relied upon in one suit filed to seek recovery of the amounts which are disputed, as also to seek a declaration (in the other suit) to the effect that the technology "owned by the JVC", i.e. M/s IPROSUGAR Engineering Pvt. Ltd., be not used by M/s Spray Engineering Devices Ltd., unless it pays royalty in terms of the aforesaid agreement. (The said technology is stated to be one for manufacturing of 'Falling Film Evaporators)'. 4. The contention of Mr. Raura, learned counsel appearing for M/s IPROSUGAR Engineering Pvt. Ltd. on the other hand, is that the said deed of adherence, the form of which is annexed as Annexure 4 with the agreement entered into between M/s IPRO Industrieprojekt GmbH and M/s Spray Engineering Devices Limited, never having actually been s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....receipt of the payment from Greece Party." (SEDL being M/s Spray Engineering Devices Ltd.) Mr. Raura next refers to Annexure P-8 (which is a part of the reply filed by M/s IPROSUGAR Engineering Private Limited to the application filed by M/s Spray Engineering Devices Ltd. (CM no.7409-CII of 2018), seeking vacation of the stay granted by this Court in this petition). The said Annexure is seen to be a letter dated August 1, 2012, written by the authorized signatory of M/s Spray Engineering Devices Limited addressed to M/s IPROSUGAR Engineering Pvt. Ltd., stating therein that as on 31.03.2012, an amount of Rs. 19,88,726/- out of a total amount of Rs. 35,30,551/- was payable to M/s IPROSUGAR Engineering Pvt. Ltd. He also refers to some amounts stated to have been paid as are given in para 12 of his reply, which learned counsel for M/s Spray Engineering Devices Limited refutes. However, that issue is not being gone into by this Court, which is on the merits of the dispute between the parties, which is not subject matter of these revision petitions, the issue in these petitions only being whether the dispute is to be settled by the civil court or by an Arbitrator. 7. The contention ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith regard to certain payments or breach of obligation of the respective parties of the terms of the agreement. However, wherever there is an admitted liability, the arbitration clause cannot be invoked. The very connotation "admitted liability" suggests that there are no disputes or differences with regard to the said admitted liability." He lastly cites a judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Coramandal Marketing (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Andhra Pradesh Lighting Ltd., 1995 (3) Andh LD 24. 9. Mr. Raura also refers to Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which reads as follows:- "7 Arbitration agreement. - (1) In this Part, "arbitration agreement" means an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. (2) An arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement. (3) An arbitration agreement shall be in writing. (4) An arbitration agreement is in writing if it is contained in- (a) a document signed by the parties; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Private Limited, that is an agreement with regard to the amount required to be paid by M/s Spray Engineering Devices Limited to M/s IPROSUGAR Engineering Private Limited, which does not override the agreement dated June 14, 2006. In fact in the opinion of this Court, had the suits of the plaintiff, i.e. M/s IPROSUGAR Engineering Private Limited, not been based upon the agreement between M/s IPRO Industrieprojekt GmbH and M/s Spray Engineering Devices Limited, dated 14.06.2006, the contention of Mr. Raura would have been absolutely correct, to the effect that the 'Deed of Adherence' (the form of which is annexed as Annexure 4 with the said agreement), not having been entered into between the parties, the arbitration clause could not be invoked, as M/s IPROSUGAR Engineering Private Limited is admittedly a different incorporated entity to M/s IPRO Industrieprojekt GmbH. 13. However, I agree with the learned counsel for M/s Spray Engineering Devices Limited, that once the agreement dated 14.06.2006 itself is the basis for the claim made in the suits filed by M/s IPROSUGAR Engineering Private Limited, it cannot approbate and reprobate to get out of the arbitration clause in th....