TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 134
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant, the respondent no.1 and the respondent nos.3 to 5 were the partners of three different partnership firms in the name and style of M/s M.M. Developers, Nisarga, M/s M.M. Developers, Shanti Nagar and M/s M.M. Developers, Shramjivi. The facts of these three cases are identical and therefore, for convenience, we are referring the facts of the case in Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7635 of 2021. A deed of retirement cum-continuation dated 12th September 2014 (for short "the retirement deed") in respect of the firm M/s M.M. Developers, Nisarga (the respondent no.2) was executed by and between the appellant, the respondent no.1 and the respondent nos.3 to 5. The retirement deed recorded that the respond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion Act contending that there was no arbitration agreement in existence and that the claim made by the respondent no.1 before the Arbitrator was barred by limitation. By the order dated 25th May 2021, the learned Arbitrator rejected the objection raised under Section 16. The respondent no.1 has pointed out in the counter affidavit that before the learned Arbitrator, the appellant, the respondent no.2 and respondent nos.4 and 5 were represented by a common advocate who specifically supported the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 in support of the application under Section 16. It is also pointed out that the aforesaid material facts have been suppressed in the present appeals filed on 9th June 2021. It is al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 11 of the Arbitration Act show that the claim of the respondent no.1 was barred by limitation. He relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of State of Orissa and another v. Damodar Das (1996) 2 SCC 216. He submitted that as the appellant was not given a notice of the date fixed in the petition under Section 11, he could not urge before the learned Single Judge that the claim of the respondent no.1 was barred by limitation and that there was no arbitration clause. He submitted that the appellant caused appearance before the learned Arbitrator without prejudice to his rights and contentions. The learned counsel relied upon another decision of this Court in the case of Vidya Drolia & Others v. Durga Trading Corporation (2021) 2 SCC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....1 submitted that what is held in paragraph 154 of the decision of this Court in the case of Vidya (supra) completely supports the case of the respondent no.1. 7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant clarified that though the advocate's notice of filing the petition under Section 11 was served upon the appellant, the date fixed in the arbitration petition was not communicated to the appellant. Moreover, the Court did not issue any notice on the petition filed under Section 11. 8. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. It is not in dispute that along with advocate's notice dated 8th November 2019, the appellant and the respondent nos.2 to 5 were served a copy of the petition filed under Section 11 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Arbitrator do not record that the appellant appeared in the meeting without prejudice to his right of challenging the order appointing the Arbitrator. In fact, Mr. Baid, the learned counsel who appeared for the appellant before the learned Arbitrator, by email dated 29th May 2021 addressed to the learned Arbitrator, sought his permission to withdraw his appearance. In the said email, the advocate stated that he was appointed on the instructions of the present appellant. Moreover, the order dated 25th May 2021 passed by the learned Arbitrator by which objections under Section 16 were overruled shows that the same advocate appeared for the appellant and supported the objections raised by the respondent no.3. As the objection was rejected by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt has been conferred power of "second look" on aspects of nonarbitrability post the award in terms of subclauses (i), (ii) or (iv) of Section 34(2)(a) or subclause (i) of Section 34(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act. 154.4. Rarely as a demurrer the court may interfere at Section 8 or 11 stage when it is manifestly and ex facie certain that the arbitration agreement is nonexistent, invalid or the disputes are nonarbitrable, though the nature and facet of nonarbitrability would, to some extent, determine the level and nature of judicial scrutiny. The restricted and limited review is to check and protect parties from being forced to arbitrate when the matter is demonstrably "nonarbitrable" and to cut off the deadwood. The court by default wou....