State Bank of India and Jaipur v. Kailash Chandra Agarwal
2013-10-22
ARUN BHANSALI
body2013
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act') is directed against the order dated 26.10.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 3, Udaipur, whereby, while accepting the application filed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 9 of the Act, the appellant Bank has been directed to credit the amount of interest debited in the account of the respondent-applicant after 18.1.2012. 2. From the material placed on record by the appellant, it is apparent that there is no arbitration agreement between the appellant Bank and respondent No. 1. The arbitration agreement, which was contained in the agreement between respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 cannot be made a basis for the purpose of invoking provisions of Section 9 of the Act qua the bank guarantee provided by the appellant Bank, which is a wholly independent agreement between the appellant Bank and respondent No. 1. It has also been brought on record that despite arbitration agreement between respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2, a suit was filed by the respondent No. 1, in which, application was initially rejected. However, on appeal, this Court directed the Trial Court to refer the parties to arbitration in terms of Section 8 of the Act. It has also been submitted that subsequent thereto, the parties i.e. respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have settled their dispute amicable without even going for arbitration. 3. In view of the overall circumstances, wherein, there is no arbitration agreement between appellant Bank and respondent No. 1, which is sine qua non for invoking provisions of Section 9 of the Act and the fact that the agreement, which formed the basis for the Court to pass order under Section 9 of the Act and which led to the dispute itself has been settled between the parties, the order impugned passed by the Trial Court cannot be sustained. 4. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The order dated 26.10.2012 passed by the Trial Court is set aside. However, it would be open for respondent No. 1 to take alternative proceedings, if permissible under the law.The stay application stands disposed of.Appeal allowed. *******