Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 4801 (MAD)

R. Raghavan v. R. Venkitapathy

2012-11-26

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment : The plaintiff/applicant has filed this application for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent No.5 to 7 from deciding the issue raised as per order dated 23.07.2012 pending disposal of the suit. 2. The plaintiff/applicant filed a suit for declaration that the order of the defendant 5 to 7 dated 23.07.2012 is illegal and invalid, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents 5 to 7 from proceeding further in pursuant to the order dated 23.07.2012, and also for mandatory injunction. 3. 26.11.2012 is the next date of hearing before the learned Arbitral Tribunal. The learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff/applicant vehemently contend, that arbitration proceedings were started in pursuance to the reference made by this Court in OSA No.282 and 285 of 2006 as per memo filed by the parties. 4. That the reference was in terms of the memo filed by the parties, therefore, it is not open to the Arbitral tribunal to go beyond the scope of reference. The proceedings initiated by the Arbitral Tribunal to entertain the additional claim filed by fifth claimant for dissolution of partnership is thus beyond the scope of reference, therefore, does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal to try additional dispute i.e, regarding dissolution of partnership. 5. Learned Senior Counsel referred to paragraph 6 of the order passed by Arbitral Tribunal which reads as under: "The point that arises for consideration in this application is whether the claim of the 5th claimant for dissolution of the Film Dinamalar based on the notice of dissolution dated 27.02.2012 falls within the scope of the terms of reference made by the High Court, Madras by the Judgment dated 23.1.2007 in OSA.No.282 and 285 of 2006 based on the memo dated 18.01.2007 filed by all the claimants and whether the Arbitral Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and consider the claim of the 5th claimant for dissolution of the Firm?" 6 .Learned Senior Counsel contends that in the subsequent part of the proceedings, the Arbitral Tribunal has taken a decision that it is within the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal to decide the question regarding dissolution of the firm. The plaintiff/applicant therefore, has chosen to file a suit for declaration to challenge the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, to try the issue for want of jurisdiction, as the matter is beyond the scope of reference. 7. The plaintiff/applicant therefore, has chosen to file a suit for declaration to challenge the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, to try the issue for want of jurisdiction, as the matter is beyond the scope of reference. 7. On consideration I find that the plaintiff does not have any prima facie case, as the decision of arbitral tribunal whether interim or final order can only be challenged under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The remedy with the petitioner is to challenge the interim or final award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It is also open to the plaintiff/applicant to challenge the final award when passed. 8. The Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to interefere with Arbitral proceedings whether the order is within the scope of reference or not. It can only be decided under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and not by way of Civil suit. Therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has a prima facie case, to maintain the application for grant of injunction. No ground is made out for grant of interim injunction. No merit. Dismissed. 9. It is made clear that the observations herein made above may not be taken to be the final decision on the merit of the suit, as it will be for the court to take a decision while finally deciding the suit.